Would this be an Example of a Naturalistic fallacy?

I hear Many on the Political Right Politicians, Commentators, even today I heard a Neighbor Complain to another neighbor how our education system teaches us to "Hate America". All of these people say they need to Teach "Real American History" and that by teaching Americans About the Native Americans being obliterated, the huge Social and Economic problems in American history including Slavery, Racism, Imperialism. This it is dividing us and creating a generation that "Hates America" and creates "entitlement". 

I find this all to be an example of the "Is-ought Problem". They make a Normative Statement while thinking they are making a Positive Statement. It seems like Cognitive Dissonance to me. 

If I can interpret this correctly it appears to be a convoluted  wanna be Slippery Slope fallacy

I don't think this is an example of the naturalistic fallacy . This is opinion with some hyperbole mixed in. The point being made is a reasonable one... we have some ugly elements to our history and focusing on those rather than an accurate representation of our whole history will give people (children) a distorted view of America. The argument being made follows a reasonable formula as well rather than a fallacious one: We are currently doing X and getting result Y (which is unfavorable), so let's try doing Z. One can argue with the claim that we are doing X, getting result Y, and the merits of doing Z, but the point is that the conclusion is simply opinion based.

I don’t think it is any of the fallacies you name, and certainly not cognitive dissonance. And, as Darren writes, “I believe that this misstates what most people who make this complaint are saying  (obviously I’m not talking about everyone who says this).”

I see a failure of clear thinking and the assumption of fuzzy concepts as part of the discussion in which opinions are tossed back and forth. 

Interestingly, yesterday, September 20, 2022, CNN host Don Lemon interviewed British royal commentator Hilary Fordwich. You can see part of it here: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNUZQNpWZ10

Lemon suggested the vast wealth inherited by King Charles III after the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, should be spent on reparations for descendants of the victims of the African slave trade.

He said: “All of this wealth — and you hear about it, comes as England is facing rising costs of living, a living crisis and austerity budget cuts, and so on, and then you have those who are asking for reparations for colonialism. Some of those people want to be paid back. Members of the public are asking, ‘why are we suffering when you have all of this vast wealth?’ Those are legitimate concerns.”

Fordwich’s response was if people want reparations, they need to look back “to the beginning of the supply chain” for slavery. “That was in Africa,” she said.

She paused, and then she gave Lemon a history lesson. The British Empire was the first nation in the world to abolish slavery. “In Great Britain, they abolished slavery. Two thousand naval men died on the high seas trying to stop slavery,” Fordwich continued. “Because the African kings were rounding up their own people, they had them in cages, waiting on the beaches. No one was running into Africa to get them. And I think you’re totally right. If reparations need to be paid, we need to go right back to the beginning of that supply chain and say, who was rounding up their own people. That’s where they should start.”

Fordwich was well prepared. She gave the name of a black slave trader who brought 12,000 slaves to America alone. She added that the descendants of the families who lost loved ones fighting the slave traders on the high seas “should receive something too.”

Actually, she pointed out, going back thousands of years, even before the Romans, due to the widespread practice of slavery, we are likely all descendants of slavery. 

Lemon appeared overwhelmed and quietly said, “It’s an interesting discussion, Hilary. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.”

Maybe the argument can be represented this way: focusing a lot on the bad and not on the good in the history of America has an agenda. The agenda is to make Americans mad through a biased school system. But there are other Americans that consider the good in the history of America. This creates division. Therefore, the educational system teaches us to "hate America" and creates entitlement.

If we say it like this, we could find either a conspiracy theory or an anonymous authority depending on how we see it. I think that the conspiracy theory focuses on the alleged agenda that the school system might have. It all depends on the truth of the claim of whether or not history is being revised.

I also want to stress that there's a big gap to jump from biased teachings to creating entitlements. How is it that making people mad motivates them to be entitled? It looks like a claim about psychology. Maybe this creates indifference in the long run. I would also add that this ignores proportions. How many Americans need to be entitled to say that there's an entitlement movement? I think this latter piece of reasoning commits a base rate fallacy. 

There's also a non sequitur in the informal sense because the fact that people are divided has no bearing on the conclusion unless there's an ambiguity being used.

The other interpretation of the argument sounds like an appeal to consequences. If people get mad from teaching things that did happen, that doesn't undermine the veracity of those historical claims. But then, omitting the things that happen and calling the revised version "real American History" would be wishful thinking.  

NOTE: I added the last sentence of the second paragraph after reading commentary.