Fine, I'll tell you guys, but this is my opinion and I said this based off of the things I've read, so be cool. I don't have my paper with me, so I'll paraphrase a little bit.
Basically, I said that if you think about it, Emmitt Till kind of deserved to be beaten' and killed. I don't agree with it, but he was well aware of the situations that were going on around that time and the thing he was doing was stupid. He knew that there would be consequences for his actions, and that he was stupid to think there wouldn't be. Whistling, let alone touching a white women back then, especially in the south, was unheard of and uncalled for, but he did it anyways.
That's what I wrote. She gave me a 50% on it, so I failed it. The assignment was to write about what we thought about the whole situation, which involves our opinion, which I stated.
This is what she wrote on my paper, again paraphrasing. "Why do you think the actions that were taken' against Emmitt Till' were necessary for such a minor issue?!?"
The reasons why I have a couple problems with that is because she said I agreed with what happened, which I obviously said I didn't. She also seemed to be mad at me for what I said, which she can be, but that doesn't mean she has to express her feelings about it. She needs to leave her opinions out of it. I know this might not seem like a big issue to you guys, but it is to me, mainly because she said I did something I didn't.
Gotta say, having experienced the Spanto tip, I'm not a big fan. The Slicer grind does more for me.
