Three things you didn't know about our first school shooting.

[cnelsen]

1. America's very first school shooting was a racist attack that claimed ten lives.
   
2. The school shooting occurred in Pennsylvania, but had absolutely nothing to do with the availability of guns in the United States.
3. Nine children were massacred, but even if there hadn't been a single gun in the entire western hemisphere, it wouldn't have saved them.

1. The attack on the school was carried out by four Delaware Indians against white children.
   
2. It occurred in 1764, before the US was even a country.
3. The teacher was killed by gunshot. Nine of the eleven children present were killed by "melee weapons".

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. America's very first school shooting was a racist attack that claimed ten lives.
   
2. The school shooting occurred in Pennsylvania, but had absolutely nothing to do with the availability of guns in the United States.
3. Nine children were massacred, but even if there hadn't been a single gun in the entire western hemisphere, it wouldn't have saved them.

1. The attack on the school was carried out by four Delaware Indians against white children.
   
2. It occurred in 1764, before the US was even a country.
3. The teacher was killed by gunshot. Nine of the eleven children present were killed by "melee weapons".

1. Nine children were massacred, but even if there hadn't been a single gun in the entire western hemisphere, it wouldn't have saved them.

Why wouldn't it?

 

[Marion Morrison]

1. America's very first school shooting was a racist attack that claimed ten lives.
   
2. The school shooting occurred in Pennsylvania, but had absolutely nothing to do with the availability of guns in the United States.
3. Nine children were massacred, but even if there hadn't been a single gun in the entire western hemisphere, it wouldn't have saved them.

1. The attack on the school was carried out by four Delaware Indians against white children.
   
2. It occurred in 1764, before the US was even a country.
3. The teacher was killed by gunshot. Nine of the eleven children present were killed by "melee weapons".

1. Nine children were massacred, but even if there hadn't been a single gun in the entire western hemisphere, it wouldn't have saved them.

Why wouldn't it?

4 Indians, one shot.

 

[usmbguest5318]

1. America's very first school shooting was a racist attack that claimed ten lives.
2. The school shooting occurred in Pennsylvania, but had absolutely nothing to do with the availability of guns in the United States.
3. Nine children were massacred, but even if there hadn't been a single gun in the entire western hemisphere, it wouldn't have saved them.

1. The attack on the school was carried out by four Delaware Indians against white children.
2. It occurred in 1764, before the US was even a country.
3. The teacher was killed by gunshot. Nine of the eleven children present were killed by "melee weapons".

A trifle consoles us, for a trifle distresses us.
-- Blaise Pascal, Pensées
​

Three things you didn't know about our first school shooting

I see in the OP six things noted in the OP. Which of them are three you envisioned when you chose the thread title?

I'm just wondering because Pontiac's Rebellion is among the stuff of elementary/middle school social studies class lesson plans?

• The Impact of Pontiac's Rebellion - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
• "The Desired Effect": Pontiac 's Rebellion and the Native American Struggle to Survive in Britain' s North American Conquest

Admittedly, the matter will only occupy a brief bit of time in the classroom, and one may have skipped or "slept through" class that day, but one was still responsible for the text.

 

[cnelsen]

1. America's very first school shooting was a racist attack that claimed ten lives.
   
2. The school shooting occurred in Pennsylvania, but had absolutely nothing to do with the availability of guns in the United States.
3. Nine children were massacred, but even if there hadn't been a single gun in the entire western hemisphere, it wouldn't have saved them.

1. The attack on the school was carried out by four Delaware Indians against white children.
   
2. It occurred in 1764, before the US was even a country.
3. The teacher was killed by gunshot. Nine of the eleven children present were killed by "melee weapons".

1. Nine children were massacred, but even if there hadn't been a single gun in the entire western hemisphere, it wouldn't have saved them.

Why wouldn't it?

The teacher was killed by gunshot. Nine of the eleven children present were killed by "melee weapons".

 

[cnelsen]

I'm just wondering because Pontiac's Rebellion is among the stuff of elementary/middle school social studies class lesson plans?

Really? I'll bet there isn't one college graduate in 10,000 who knows that the Indians who attacked the British around the Great Lakes had been the allies of the defeated French in the French and Indian War. Or that the Indians were upset that the French were going to cede their territory to the British. Or that the Indians attacked anyone perceived to be British, killing men, women, and children.

Nevertheless, you can't blame Chief Pontiac for his justification of the attacks: "It is important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation which seeks only to destroy us. You see as well as I that we can no longer supply our needs, as we have done from our brothers, the French.... Therefore, my brothers, we must all swear their destruction and wait no longer. Nothing prevents us; they are few in numbers, and we can accomplish it."

We need a similarly great leader to lead us against the Jews.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm just wondering because Pontiac's Rebellion is among the stuff of elementary/middle school social studies class lesson plans?

Really? I'll bet there isn't one college graduate in 10,000 who knows that the Indians who attacked the British around the Great Lakes had been the allies of the defeated French in the French and Indian War. Or that the Indians were upset that the French were going to cede their territory to the British. Or that the Indians attacked anyone perceived to be British, killing men, women, and children.

Nevertheless, you can't blame Chief Pontiac for his justification of the attacks: "It is important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation which seeks only to destroy us. You see as well as I that we can no longer supply our needs, as we have done from our brothers, the French.... Therefore, my brothers, we must all swear their destruction and wait no longer. Nothing prevents us; they are few in numbers, and we can accomplish it."

We need a similarly great leader to lead us against the Jews.

Off-topic:

Really?

Yes, really. That's why I provided the link to that middle school class plan that included the teacher's supplement for the topic.

Even if it's not covered at all by middle-school, it's sure to be covered at the high school level. I mean, really, it's mentioned multiple times in a free history textbook one can obtain online.

• Problems England Faced After the French and Indian War

History, unlike science, hasn't changed since the mid-1700s. The Chief and his exploits are going to get covered before one leaves school. Now whether one remembers (even just vaguely, which is how much of him I remembered -- I read your OP, and Pontiac, the French and Indian War were all the details I could recall from those "clues") his daring do is wholly different matter.

What I suspect isn't explicitly stated to middle schoolers is that Chief Pontiac and his cohorts killed students/children. That said, by the time one is in high school, seeing declarations that "hundreds of pioneers were killed" ought to trigger in one's mind that there's a fair chance that among the dead were women and children/students, though one might not fathom that an actual attack happened at a school, though I don't know why one wouldn't.

• Language like pioneers, settlers, etc., along with it being 1763-4, should clue one in that not many folks are in any one frontier place...something between ~50 to ~200, which would make it a "big" frontier settlement -- something populated like a small suburban subdivision.
• It's 1763-4. That settlement is surrounded by what? Woods, perhaps some creeks or a river run(s) through/near it.
• It's 1763-4. "Things that go bump in the night" and day more likely do so because of a four-legged creature than because of a human. So unless one is afraid of ruminants, rodents and bears, "random" rustlings won't attract much attention. "Oh, it was probably just a [insert crepuscular beast of your choice]."
• It's 1763-4. How much advanced notice did settlers in "the middle of nowhere" in the middle of the woods get that hundreds of Native Americans were about ambush them? My guess: little to none. Back then and in those early frontier towns, "breaking news" was often enough not news to 'you' because 'you' already literally running or hiding from that "news," and others seeing you do so is what broke the news to them.

What I'm saying is that while as middle and high school texts don't "slap you in the face" with the blood and gore, part of one's "job" as a student is to make those kinds of sound/cogent inferences about the information that one is given. Certainly by the time one is an adult, particularly reflecting back on what one has been taught, one "most definitely" should have made them. The study of history is the study of humanity and the human condition, after all, and developing an awareness of the human condition is what should impell one to make such inferences and, in turn, verify them. ("Trust, but verify" must apply to oneself as well as to others.)

Man's sensitivity to the little things and insensitivity to the greatest are the signs of a strange disorder.
-- Blaise Pascal​

I'll bet there isn't one college graduate in 10,000 who knows that the Indians who attacked the British around the Great Lakes had been the allies of the defeated French in the French and Indian War.

That may be; I don't know, but I don't think you do either. That said, I'm not inclined to think so because I think many folks know WWI was not, after all, actually the first worldwide war, but rather the first one in the 20th century, coming well after the world war that was the Seven Years war.

1. I can't speak to what any individual knows or doesn't know; like many folks, I'm sure I've forgotten more from school than I've remembered. I can only speak to what I know had to have been taught and/or what I know of what my kids were taught.
2. It may well be that fewer than 1 in 10K college grads knows what you've noted, but I'd be surprised if so few wouldn't have sussed as much. After all, the French and Indian War (FIW) was but the name of the North American portion of the world war that was the Seven Years War, and that is definitely something that gets covered in both European history and American history classes.
   • The FIW is to the Seven Years War as the North African Campaign was to WWII.
   • I suspect that Iraqi middle-to-high schoolers are taught about the Anglo-Iraqi War but they know too that it was just part of WWII. So it is with American students and the FIW.

But, hey, maybe there actually are folks who think the FIW was a war having as opponents the French and the Indians (Native Americans).....​

 

[cnelsen]

Man's sensitivity to the little things and insensitivity to the greatest are the signs of a strange disorder.
-- Blaise Pascal

Appeal to authority is the weakest form of argument. --Boethius

 

[usmbguest5318]

Man's sensitivity to the little things and insensitivity to the greatest are the signs of a strange disorder.
-- Blaise Pascal

Appeal to authority is the weakest form of argument. --Boethius

Wow....