Utterly, impossibly incoherent.
You could laud enslaved people struggling for their freedom but not answer against whom they struggled.
People who contributed to American society can only have done so beneficially, so those who did negative things cannot be mentioned?
You could laud enslaved people struggling for their freedom but not answer against whom they struggled.
People who contributed to American society can only have done so beneficially, so those who did negative things cannot be mentioned?
https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1444000828419936258
You could maybe teach abolitionism but not the most famous speeches by Frederick Douglass or William Lloyd Garrison attacking the Constitution.
Teachers might mention a book called Uncle Tom's Cabin galvanized northern opinion about slavery but, as fiction, not teach it?
How could you teach amending the Constitution if it is a perfect document?
I mean, you can praise those using these documents for reform, but what about those seeking (sometimes successfully!) to change them? Is it ok because amending the Constitution is itself in the Constitution? Who knows?
This is not history.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
