Secession & Superiority (A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing, Part One)

{This Post is Recycled – Reworked from a Previous Version and Reposted In It’s Updated Glory}

Secession Map

In the Election of 1860, despite almost unanimous opposition from southern states, Abraham Lincoln was elected. Between the announcement of his victory (it took a little longer to tally everything back then) and his inauguration in early March, seven southern states announced they were leaving the Union.

From Georgia’s Declaration of Secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property…

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party… anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose…

Notice the way the format consciously echoes the Declaration of Independence – the basic proclamation followed by a list of complaints explaining why they are never ever ever getting back together. 

From Mississippi’s Declaration:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

They all pretty much go like this. Based on these documents, produced by the Southern states for the explicit purpose of proclaiming to the world the causes of their secession, the main issues seemed to be (1) slavery, (2) slavery, and – in some cases – (3) slavery. 

Slavery Chains

South Carolina took the lead as they always did when steps towards racial equity needed to be crushed:

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations… {The northern} States… have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them… Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken…

Those {non-slaveholding} States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions*; and have denied the rights of property** established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery***; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies,**** whose avowed object is to disturb the peace… They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. 

*i.e. ‘slavery’
**i.e. ‘slaves’
***i.e. ‘Slavery’ – oh wait, it says it this time, doesn’t it? My bad.
****i.e., abolitionists 

South Carolina was upset that the North allowed so much discussion of things which threatened their way of life and went against their beliefs. They listed as one of their central reasons for trying to break the country their collective outrage that other states weren’t doing enough to stifle debate.

Their little white feelings were hurt and their dominant role in the world inconvenienced. Poor things. 

Seriously, it goes on for several pages like that.

Lincoln ThoughtfulWas Lincoln’s election really such a threat to their way of life? Maybe. Not according to Lincoln, it wasn’t, but the new Republican Party openly advocated for restrictions on slavery – particularly in terms of limiting its expansion. Perhaps that was a debate worth having, in the context of the times.

But the time for discussion and compromise, it seems, was over. The writing was on the wall, and the South feared that reason and decency would no longer produce the outcome they wished. So, they circumvented both and tried to change the rules. They chose theatrics over the much more difficult path of introspection.

…those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Slavery was not simply about physical bondage, as central as that was. It required a type of brainwashing and systemic manipulation so that the slave remained perpetually hopeless, and largely helpless. They were kept ignorant of all but the most basic skills or concepts. Slave-owners – the same ones who would soon rebel based on their right not to be bossed around – were forbidden by law from teaching their slaves to read, or otherwise expanding their horizons beyond what was absolutely necessary. 

The shocking thing about slave revolts isn’t that they happened – it’s that there were so few of them. Most resistance was covert, cultural – playing dumb, breaking things, maintaining an identity bewildering to white slave-owners. 

The Underground Railroad was pretty amazing, but the total numbers carried to freedom were miniscule compared to the size of the institution. And yet…

…incited by emissaries, books and pictures…

Do you feel the past reaching out to you through that line? I get goosie-bumps. 

Reading Free“We don’t like the thinking prompted by your teachers, your books, your visuals. We don’t appreciate you complicating their worlds or ours by introducing problematic ideas. Ignorance is bliss, buddy – our version of reality is good enough, despite its apparent inability to withstand the slightest scrutiny.”

See? I coulda been a Southerner. Or an Oklahoma legislator!

The problem with education is that it gets people thinking. The problem with thinking is that they don’t always think what we want them to. And, in the South’s defense, sometimes a little knowledge IS a dangerous thing – we’ll look at that in Part Two.

The South understood the dangers of expanded thinking. As lovers of tradition – and of being in charge – they had little taste for new or threatening ideas. They codified narrow-mindedness as a virtue and framed the ignorance of those in bondage as a mercy. 

Turns out the human race is pretty good at legal, intellectual, and moral contortions when it’s time to rationalize something we really really want to be true. 

South Rising Again

After the War – which they lost – the South continued to fight against dangerous levels of education for others. They also began denying their own explicitly stated causes for trying to leave in the first place. When you feel strongly enough that your cause is just, reality is just one more adversity to nobly overcome for the greater good.

That’s Part Three.

There’s a common saying about people who don’t know their history being doomed to repeat it. That’s true enough, but it doesn’t acknowledge those who want to recapture the ignorance and sins of the past – who find antebellum ideals to be the very core of American greatness. Today, as then, that requires ignoring or subverting knowledge and debate.

Both are still dangerous.

RELATED POST: Forever Unfit To Be A Slave (A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing, Part Two)

RELATED POST: Liar, Liar, Twitterpants on Fire (A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing, Part Three)

Mary Boykin Chesnut’s Diary, Part Two (Repost)

NOTE: I’m reposting a few past personal favorites as a palate-cleanser of sorts during this contentious election season. I thought it would be nice to remember when America was enjoying simpler times…

MBC Stars

Mrs. Chesnut has been recording for posterity the events surrounding the so-called “Battle of Fort Sumter.” Except she’s mostly not. 

Louisa Hamilton came here now. This is a sort of news center. Jack Hamilton, her handsome young husband, has all the credit of a famous battery, which is made of railroad iron. Mr. Petigru calls it the ‘boomerang,’ because it throws the balls back the way they came; so Lou Hamilton tells us.  

The ‘boomerang’ bit is a brag by Mrs. Hamilton on her husband‘s artillery unit – they not only hold their ground when taking incoming fire, they gather the cannonballs fired at them and send them back. Boo-yah! 

How much you wanna bet Mrs. H. works that into conversation one way or the other about every three minutes?

During her first marriage, she had no children; hence the value of this lately achieved baby. 

James & Mary Chesnut

Historical documents of a personal nature can be difficult – especially for students – because tone is everything. Overlook a little flirting, or sarcasm, or other emoticon-deficient vibe, and you can misread a source completely. 

Mrs. Chesnut is kind enough to write on both levels simultaneously – the obvious, smiling appreciation for a friend’s long-awaited offspring, and – unless I’m projecting – a little wry commentary on Louisa’s mothering as well.  

It might even be cruel. 

To divert Louisa from the glories of “the Battery,” of which she raves, we asked if the baby could talk yet. “No, not exactly, but he imitates the big gun when he hears that. He claps his hands and cries ‘Boom, boom.'” 

Her mind is distinctly occupied by three things: Lieutenant Hamilton, whom she calls “Randolph,” the baby, and the big gun, and it refuses to hold more…

*snort*

I do not wonder at Louisa Hamilton’s baby; we hear nothing, can listen to nothing; boom, boom goes the cannon all the time. The nervous strain is awful, alone in this darkened room. “Richmond and Washington ablaze,” say the papers – blazing with excitement. Why not? To us these last days’ events seem frightfully great.  

Ft Sumter On FireThat Chesnut always returns to the sincere – the actual experience. It anchors her prose in a way mere observation or gratuitous fiction could not. Her ability to grab descriptive slices of people and events and weave them in so transparently makes this something more alive than mere history is usually thought to be. 

But that’s what makes this real history. 

The war, the guns, the actions, the results – facts matter, and always will. But people, having experiences, and making choices, and feeling feels… in the end, that‘s usually what produces the wars and drives the actions. Like Anne Frank in her attic or Bridget Jones navigating high society in London*, that rare opportunity to zoom in and inhabit the past through the eyes and experiences of another – that’s why we love history. 

It gets even better.  

April 13th. – Nobody has been hurt after all. How gay we were last night…  

Yes, half of my students are 14-year old boys. This line is always a thing.  

19th Century Belles

Fort Sumter has been on fire. Anderson has not yet silenced any of our guns. So the aides, still with swords and red sashes by way of uniform, tell us. But the sound of those guns makes regular meals impossible. None of us go to table. Tea-trays pervade the corridors going everywhere. Some of the anxious hearts lie on their beds and moan in solitary misery. Mrs. Wigfall and I solace ourselves with tea in my room. These women have all a satisfying faith. “God is on our side,” they say. When we are shut in Mrs. Wigfall and I ask “Why?” “Of course, He hates the Yankees, we are told. You’ll think that well of Him.” 

Mona Lisa“A satisfying faith” – once again, understated layers of meaning. Chesnut doesn’t directly comment, she portrays – with precision. I think she’s aware of us, all these years later, reading her through this… ‘documentation’ of events. Do you feel her Mona Lisa smirk on us?  

Not by one word or look can we detect any change in the demeanor of these negro servants. Lawrence sits at our door, sleepy and respectful, and profoundly indifferent. So are they all, but they carry it too far. You could not tell that they even heard the awful roar going on in the bay, though it has been dinning in their ears night and day. People talk before them as if they were chairs and tables. They make no sign. Are they stolidly stupid? or wiser than we are; silent and strong, biding their time? 

Southern nobility lived with themselves as slave-owners largely by learning not to ‘see’ those they enslaved. Perhaps overseers or smaller property owners were all too aware of what they were doing to real live people, but the elite seem to have largely trained themselves to give wide berth to troubling thoughts. 

Chesnut’s diary resonates, however, not only from her poignant word choices, but her willingness to watch, and listen, in the first place. She is fully present, and not afraid to see what she sees. We should do so well. 

Anyone could have made this observation – it’s glaring, once noted. People have an amazing capacity, though, to see what we wish to see and discard the rest. Whether slaves, dust, quiet students, personal faults, or moonwalking bears, our filters are really something else. We know this, but usually do a pretty good job ignoring this about ourselves as well. Ironic, right? 

So tea and toast came; also came Colonel Manning, red sash and sword, to announce that he had been under fire, and didn’t mind it. He said gaily: “It is one of those things a fellow never knows how he will come out until he has been tried. Now I know I am a worthy descendant of my old Irish hero of an ancestor, who held the British officer before him as a shield in the Revolution, and backed out of danger gracefully.” We talked of St. Valentine’s eve, or the maid of Perth, and the drop of the white doe’s blood that sometimes spoiled all… 

First Bull RunThe standard American History book will tell you the South was overconfident after First Bull Run, etc. I’d argue Colonel Manning and his ilk were way ahead of the crowd on this one.  

It’s still all a play, a fantastic story, to those involved at this stage. This is not something you’ll hear from men a year or two later in this war. Some will look back and shake their heads with a dark chuckle that they’d ever thought such things.  

Fort Sumter surrendered, and the war was officially begun. The next major action will be a bit better planned – although not by much. At First Bull Run, young men will actually be injured. Many will die. But not yet. 

April 20, 1861. – Home again at Mulberry. In those last days of my stay in Charleston I did not find time to write a word… I have been sitting idly to-day looking out upon this beautiful lawn, wondering if this can be the same world I was in a few days ago. After the smoke and the din of the battle, a calm. 

Indeed.

Mulberry Plantation

* Just seeing if you were paying attention.

RELATED POST: Mary Boykin Chesnut’s Diary, Part One (Repost)

Mary Boykin Chesnut’s Diary, Part One (Repost)

NOTE: I’m reposting a few past personal favorites as a palate-cleanser of sorts during this contentious election season. Better I own up to them this way than wait for Wikileaks to expose and belittle me all over the interwebs. 

(God, I wish Wikileaks would expose and belittle me all over the interwebs…)

Mary Boykin Chesnut

Mary Boykin Chesnut was a Southern lady in the purest tradition.

Following Lincoln’s election in 1860, James Chesnut helped write South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession and during the subsequent war served as an aide to General Beauregard and President Davis, eventually rising to the rank of General. born into South Carolina’s political nobility and educated at one of the finest boarding schools in Charleston. Her husband was the son of a successful plantation owner and an upwardly mobile politico himself. 

Women in such circumstances were expected to be well-educated, but not given much opportunity to use their fancy brains. In retrospect, it might have been kinder to either keep them as ignorant as possible or let them do stuff – but such were the mores of the day. So she read, she observed, and she wrote. 

Lots. 

MBC Diary CoverThe diary of Mrs. Chesnut is one of the essential primary sources of the Civil War, and still readily available if you’re interested. It’s quite accessible to the casual reader – you won’t even know you’re learning history, I promise. 

The best-known passages describe events in and around her household (a very active place even when wars weren’t being started nearby) as the tensions between North and South approach conflagration, thanks in large part to the stubbornness of Union Colonel Robert Anderson, in command of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. 

April 12th. – Anderson will not capitulate. Yesterday’s was the merriest, maddest dinner we have had yet. Men were audaciously wise and witty. We had an unspoken foreboding that it was to be our last pleasant meeting… Mrs. Henry King rushed in saying, “The news, I come for the latest news. All the men of the King family are on the Island,” of which fact she seemed proud. 

While she was here our peace negotiator, or envoy, came in – that is, Mr. Chesnut returned. His interview with Colonel Anderson had been deeply interesting, but Mr. Chesnut was not inclined to be communicative. He wanted his dinner. He felt for Anderson and had telegraphed to President Davis for instructions – what answer to give Anderson, etc. He has now gone back to Fort Sumter with additional instructions.  

When they were about to leave the wharf A. H. Boykin sprang into the boat in great excitement. He thought himself ill-used, with a likelihood of fighting and he to be left behind! 

Ft. Sumter BeforeNever has a better case been made for teaching reading and writing, although her keen observations on human nature are perhaps harder to mandate.   

Mrs. Chesnut’s observations of her husband are appropriately loving and respectful, always. Her subtle commentary on others, however, brings her writing to life. Her snapshots of Mrs. King and the young Boykin are sympathetic, certainly – but tinted with bewilderment over their enthusiasm for war. 

The words themselves maintain perfectly plausible deniability, were posterity to challenge her tone – “Me? Oh, no no – I was just noting what I saw and heard… that’s all.” (*fans self with something lavishly decorative*)  

Underwater Tea Party“Men were audaciously wise and witty.” What a marvelous phrase. It sounds like the Mad Hatter’s tea party, but instead of pure chaos, her description is redolent of forced fearlessness and social gilding. F. Scott Fitzgerald has nothing on the wealthy belle when it comes to writing dinner parties.  

I do not pretend to go to sleep. How can I? If Anderson does not accept terms at four, the orders are, he shall be fired upon. I count four, St. Michael’s bells chime out and I begin to hope. At half-past four the heavy booming of a cannon. I sprang out of bed, and on my knees prostrate I prayed as I never prayed before. 

There was a sound of stir all over the house, pattering of feet in the corridors. All seemed hurrying one way. I put on my double-gown and a shawl and went, too. It was to the housetop. The shells were bursting. In the dark I heard a man say, “Waste of ammunition.”  

I don’t know who the man in the dark may have been, but if this were a work of fiction rather than a primary source, I’d point him out as a brilliant bit of literary slight-of-hand.  

On The RoofWhile the rest of the city – and, by proxy, the South – celebrates the opening rounds of what will no doubt prove a majestic little melee, one anonymous voice just out of view notices that they’re firing land weapons at a fort designed to withstand attack by foreign navies. 

Nothing tangible is being accomplished – it won’t work. There’s kerfuffle enough, but no substance. There’s a cost, but for what prize?

I’m no expert on Mary Boykin Chesnut, but if someone who WERE wished to persuade me she’s taken literary license with her account to say things she could not, as a wife and loyal secesh, say – well, I wouldn’t argue. 

Last night, or this morning truly, up on the housetop I was so weak and weary I sat down on something that looked like a black stool. “Get up, you foolish woman. Your dress is on fire,” cried a man. And he put me out. I was on a chimney and the sparks had caught my clothes. Susan Preston and Mr. Venable then came up. But my fire had been extinguished before it burst out into a regular blaze. 

I realize it’s not exactly gut-splitting to read in the 21st century, but this is funny. It’s the 19th century equivalent of zany slapstick humor.  

If only the helpful man had said “nyuk nyuk!” and poked her in the eyes just after. 

Do you know, after all that noise and our tears and prayers, nobody has been hurt; sound and fury signifying nothing – a delusion and a snare. 

This sentence could be used as an example for about 43 different things in ELA, AND it’s a pleasure to read repeatedly. It’s like literary bruschetta. 

And remember that ‘plausible deniability’ from a bit ago? It’s about to get pushed to the limits of of beau monde.  That Chesnut is a real card. 

Next time.  

3 Stooges w/ MBC

RELATED POST: Mary Boykin Chesnut’s Diary, Part Two (Repost)

re: Your Brains (APARTY Sample Song)

If you haven’t read my explanation of the “Mr. Miyagi” approach to document analysis, you might want to check that out first – otherwise this page probably won’t make as much sense.

I change songs from time to time just to keep myself interested, but here’s one I used successfully off and on for years – “re: Your Brains” by Jonathan Coulton.

I don’t have any particular rights to use this one any more than I do anything else, but Coulton is that modern troubadour sort who’s generally pretty cool about his music being used as long as properly credited. If you decide to use this or any of his stuff (he has several that work) in class, you should cough up your 99 cents or whatever and buy your own copy. It’s the right thing to do.

Here’s an audio only video of the song from YouTube followed by the full lyrics…

re: Your Brains

Heya Tom, it’s Bob from the office down the hall. Good to see you buddy, how’ve you been? Things have been OK for me, except that I’m a zombie now – I really wish you’d let us in.

I think I speak for all of us when I say I understand why you folks might hesitate to submit to our demands. But here’s an FYI: you’re all gonna die screaming…

All we want to do is eat your brains – we’re not unreasonable, I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes. All we want to do is eat your brains – we’re at an impasse here, maybe we should compromise: if you open up the doors, we’ll all come inside and eat your brains.

I don’t want to nitpick, Tom, but is this really your plan? Spend your whole life locked inside a mall? Maybe that’s OK for now, but someday you’ll be out of food and guns… and then you’ll have to make the call.

I’m not surprised to see you haven’t thought it through enough; you never had the head for all that “bigger picture” stuff. But Tom, that’s what I do, and I plan on eating you slowly…

All we want to do is eat your brains – we’re not unreasonable, I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes. All we want to do is eat your brains – we’re at an impasse here, maybe we should compromise: if you open up the doors, we’ll all come inside and eat your brains.

I’d like to help you Tom, in any way I can. I sure appreciate the way you’re working with me. I’m not a monster, Tom – well, technically I am… I guess I am.

I’ve got another meeting Tom, maybe we could wrap it up. I know we’ll get to common ground somehow. Meanwhile I’ll report back to my colleagues who were chewing on the doors – I guess we’ll table this for now.

I’m glad to see you take constructive criticism well. Thank you for your time I know we’re all busy as hell. And we’ll put this thing to bed when I bash your head open…

All we want to do is eat your brains – we’re not unreasonable, I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes. All we want to do is eat your brains – we’re at an impasse here, maybe we should compromise: if you open up the doors, we’ll all come inside and eat your brains.

There’s no script for how this discussion unfolds, although I summarized the basic steps previously. The overall approach we’re modeling is one of unpacking the whole by starting with the pieces.

I play the song once for general overview, then again while students identify words or phrases which might be important but which not everyone might know. When it ends the second time, I ask for word or phrase that might be important but unfamiliar, and we build from there.

Often someone mentions “impasse” as a term not everyone might know, so we discuss it – what is an ‘impasse’? What’s the impasse in this document? Maybe the next term brought up is “compromise”, so we discuss.

This particular document has some interesting phrases usually thought of as cliches of the business world – “table this for now” and such. We discuss denotation as well as connotation, and at some point I transition to asking questions that will lead me into introducing APARTY or SOAPSTone, or whatever other document analysis acronym I want to use.  Here I’ll use APARTY elements (Author, Place & Time, Audience, Reason, The Main Idea, Yeah – So What?)

“What can we tell about the Author based on this document?” Because we’re treating this as a legit document, I don’t mean Jonathan Coulton – I mean the ‘narrator’.  If I’m not already recording information on the board, It’s important to start doing so with this step. A common first response is that he’s a zombie. “How do you know?” “Show me.” Students will point out lines from the document in which he admits he’s a zombie, and that he wants to eat brains, etc. I ask for other specifics from the document which support or refute this interpretation, and eventually ask how strong our inference is that the author is a zombie. In this case, it’s pretty strong.

What else? (His name is Bob, he works with Tom, he likes brains, he’s a bit condescending, he seems to be the spokesman or leader of the other zombies, etc.) The important pattern to be established here is the “show me” element – why do you think so?. Justify it. What evidence supports or refutes this inference? How strong is our inference here?

It’s OK to have weaker inferences as long as we recognize them as such. A case can be made that Bob is a former underling of Tom’s now parroting back snarky things Tom used to say or do, now that he’s in a position of some power (as a monster and all). This is a plausible and reasonable inference, but without more information it’s a much weaker inference than, say, the idea that Tom is the spokesmen for humans in a mall with locked doors, food, and guns.

We work through the other elements in similar fashion – what can you tell me about the Audience for this document? How do you know? What clues are there as to Place & Time? What’s the Reason this was written? (It’s intended to persuade.)

You remember how crazy it used to make you when your math teacher would make you show your work? Part of why they do this, even when the problem being solved is relatively easy and you don’t really need to, is they want you to become comfortable with the process. They know eventually the problems will grow much more difficult, and it’s important you be comfortable with the steps most likely to help you solve them. That’s all we’re doing here – practicing an approach. Don’t worry – the documents will get much more difficult very quickly.

This is also a chance in class to model and become more comfortable with productive, professional disagreement. One student may infer that Tom is clearly trapped in an office of some sort, and point to lines which seem to indicate that to be the case. Another student may then argue that while they know each other from the office, they’re clearly in a mall of some sort, and point to evidence supporting this understanding instead. That’s exactly what we want to happen, and for students to be comfortable being wrong, or disagreeing, without it ever becoming personal.

NOTE: I find that both students and teachers have trouble with The Main Idea. This should be a one sentence summary of the what the document SAYS. Most students and teachers want to tell me what it’s ABOUT – which is not the same thing. I respectfully suggest it’s worth the extra time spent in small groups and as a class wrestling with and refining The Main Idea – this will pay off later. FWIW, my Main Idea for this particular document would be something along the lines of, “Tom, this is Bob and I’m a zombie now; I get why you want to resist this, but we’re going to eat your brains and it would make things better for everyone if you’d just accept this and open up.” There are probably better ones and shorter ones, but this one at least conveys the guts of the document in a single sentence.

As we transition into doing an APARTY (or SOAPSTone) over real primary sources, I suggest students shoot for one full side of one page for their analysis. This requires more than some shallow scribbling, but still keeps things at a concise, manageable length for both them and you

If your kids are like mine, you’ll have to push them a bit the first few times. Don’t tell me “Publius” was the author and stop there – tell me that really James Madison wrote it, and who he was, and why HIS opinions about the new Constitution might matter, etc. Don’t tell me the cartoon was created in 1978 and move on – tell me about the energy crisis and public perceptions of President Carter and why their are peanuts and that scary rabbit in the foreground, etc. (The exception is The Main Idea segment, which should – as the term suggests – be simply the main idea, most likely a sentence or two at most.)

I’ll leave you with several other songs I’ve used over the years to introduce basic document analysis. I sometimes use lyrics videos, but don’t generally use actual music videos since a large part of the exercise is about pulling meaning from text. If there are visuals, students will naturally be drawn to those first and that kinda misses the point of this particular activity.

For purposes of sharing online with other educators, however, linking to YouTube is simply too convenient to pass up. Obviously if you use a song in class, you should legally purchase an actual download so you can sleep at night.

APARTY (Document Analysis) – PDF

APARTY (Blank for Assignments) – PDF

Good APARTY Examples – PDF

Bad APARTY Example – PDF

SOAPStone (Document Analysis) – PDF

HIPPO (Document Analysis) – PDF

Classroom Control, Part I (Historical Guest Blog)

Old Classroom 1

Today’s Historical Guest Blog comes to us from Corinne A. Seeds, A.M., Principal of the Training School, Assistant Supervisor of Training, University of California at Los Angeles, with the cooperation of Milo B. Hillegas, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. I am not aware that either has a blog of their own, and as the material used here was published in 1927-28 (in Volume I of the 12-Volume series, The Class Room Teacher), chances are good both have gone to that great Teachers’ Lounge in the sky to mimeograph with the angels, as it were.

Their advice is nonetheless timeless – or at least amusing – and is shared here in excited anticipation of the upcoming semester.

Classroom Control: Methods of Control

The problem of classroom control is most vital and of outstanding, far-reaching importance. The future welfare of our country depends largely upon the methods of control used upon its future citizens. By these very methods teachers can produce anything from slaves who obey their masters explicitly without thinking, to freemen who make their choices only after careful deliberation and discussion. Thus it is of the utmost importance that teachers should know what types of control are best for the future welfare of a democracy.

“…a conglomerate mass of individuals at all stages…”

Our democracy is composed of a conglomerate mass of individuals at all stages of ethical development, from those who obey the laws made by the group for the welfare of all only when they are forced to do so to those unselfish souls who realize that their highest development and happiness are reached only as they consider all and act according to the best interests of the whole group. Midway between these two extremes we find those who obey only because they have been trained to do so, some who conform because of fear of the disapproval of their fellow men, and still others who act in accord because they long for approbation.

Taking into consideration all of these classes of people with such different attitudes towards control, it would be folly to assume that one method of control, even the ideal, would prove sufficient to promote the best interests of the group. There should be as many types of control as there are attitudes toward it. While it is necessary at times to use the lower forms of control, yet it should be the hope of the democracy that in the dim distant future, through our methods of education, the ideal can be truly reached – “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” 

Old Classroom 2

“…the highest control is that which comes from within…”

The problem of control which the classroom teacher must meet is a miniature of the greater problem which confronts the democracy.  It is not easy for the teacher to know how to manage Mexican Pedro, whose father digs in the street, Isadore, the son of the Rabbi, Mary Evelyn, whose mother is president of the philosophical society, and forty others who differ more or less in native and acquired characteristics, so that they may live richly and cooperatively together in their school community and grow into better, happier boys and girls. Like the democracy she should be cognizant of the fact that the highest control is that which comes from within as a result of reason, and she should strive toward that as her ideal. But she should not be utterly crushed if at times she has to resort to coercion in order to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

In order to meet the control problems found in the typical American classrooms, teachers use methods based upon the following general types or combinations of two or more types:

(1) No control, wherein the children all do as they please.

(2) Teacher control, wherein rules are made and enforced by the teacher.

(3) Group control, wherein rules are made and enforced by the group working together for a common purpose.

(4) Unselfish self-control, wherein each person considers the good of the whole.

Old Classroom 3

NO CONTROL – Example:

The teacher is attempting to carry on a class recitation with one group of children while the others are supposed to be studying. Two or three large boys are lying on the floor with their feet propped against the stove. They are reading fiction which does not contribute in any way to their assignment. They later show a lack of knowledge as to the lesson content. Several girls are holding an animated conversation about the ways of securing pictures of the favorite “movie” actresses. The children who are trying to study have to dodge continual volleys of chalk, paper-wads, and even an eraser now and then. A note of unsavory character is passed about among the older children who laugh heartily at its contents.

The room is in an uproar; the recitation is a complete failure; but the teacher smilingly assures the visitor that she believes in “freedom.” 

Discussion:

There can be no defense for such lack of control, even when masquerading under cover of the term “freedom.” The teacher might as well not be there at all. The result of no control is always chaos; children are denied the right to feel happiness in real achievement; habits and attitudes are formed during these years in the school room which may tend to make of them, in later life, unreasoning, selfish, and lawless citizens.

Perhaps it might be well to state that true freedom would not allow such an infringement upon the rights and liberties of others. True freedom is something which should be earned and bestowed only upon those who can use it wisely. All teachers should be very careful to distinguish between real freedom and merely allowing children to do as they please. Real freedom leads toward right and true happiness; while allowing children to do as they please leads toward wrong and toward future sorrow.

Old Classroom 4

ABSOLUTE TEACHER CONTROL – Example:

When the class assembles on the first day of school, the teacher firmly informs the children that they are there for business and she is there to see that they attend to this business of learning. In order to accomplish this, certain tasks must be finished each day before they leave school. Anything which interferes with the work of school, such as talking without permission, whispering, giggling, or writing notes to one another will be carefully noted and punished by the teacher.

Ever after the children study the lessons assigned by the teacher, answer her questions, and accept the punishment she doles out for misdemeanors and errors. They usually do no more than they are asked, and frequently they misbehave when the teacher is not looking.

The teacher’s life is one of constant watchfulness. Her profession is not teaching; it is policing. She must be continually alert to catch the law-breakers, fair enough to pronounce just punishment, and persevering enough to see that punishment once pronounced is executed.

Discussion:

Such a method is far preferable to the preceding no-control type and should be used, especially by the inexperienced teacher, until she can determine the type best suited to her class of children. If used by a teacher who is always just and fair, the class achievement is usually good and the children rather happy. If, perchance, the teacher is a benign tyrant, the children will often vote this type of control the best of all, because, like many adults, some children dislike sharing responsibility and making choices.

Under this system the children usually do the right thing, not because they know it is the right or why it is the right, but because they are trained to obey blindly. The great danger her lies in the fact that they may form habits of following blindly, and later may unthinkingly follow unworthy leaders.

No teacher should be content to use this type continually unless she is handling groups, who, because of limited capacities, will always be obliged to “follow a leader.” As soon as possible each group of children should be given a share of the responsibility for its own mental and moral achievement. The teacher should covet the position of guide and advisor rather than one of policeman.

Old Classroom 9

Next: Part Two – “The Ideal Solution,” in which it is revealed that…

“Daise was sobbing too much to talk, but the indignant lad and a dozen others could tell. John had given Daise a branch of Japanese cherry blossoms to bribe her not to report him. Before the investigation was over it developed that eight-year-old Daise had become richer by a box of raisins, two candied cherries, and a chocolate bar – all for not doing her duty.”

(Coming Soon… Maybe)