I haven't read the book, so am not hugely familiar, but she read it as a critique of WW1 and WW2, which she said was the fault of capitalism, men, and the West.

She also linked it in the sinking of the Titanic too for some reason, and said it was proof of the unsustainability of (again) men, capitalism, and the West.

The book might even be making those claims. I doubt it, but don't know. The issue was she was uncritically endorsing them, calling them historical facts, and not even opening the topic to discussion.

Study works that criticise these things by all means. I don't want to live in an echo chamber. But she was simply propagandising to children and trying to stop them making their own minds up. As a teacher, she shouldn't be allowed to take any political positions.

I haven't read the book, so am not hugely familiar, but she read it as a critique of WW1 and WW2, which she said were the fault of capitalism, men, and the West.

She also linked it in the sinking of the Titanic too for some reason, and said it was a metaphor for the arrogance of (again) men, capitalism, and the West.

The book might even be making those claims. I doubt it, but don't know. The issue was she was uncritically endorsing them, calling them historical facts, and not even opening the topic to discussion.