A critique on the Americentric view of history we tend to be be exposed to at school. While it may go by different names and cover different events, the methodology behind history class rarely changes. With an exception of the little-to-no ancient history covered in classes, we are taught history from a Eurocentric perspective (specifically that of Western Europe) which slowly becomes more and more specific leading up to the American Revolution, at which an ‘Americentric’ view dominates. History classes have focused on the singular, pro-American story, making it harder for us to acknowledge and learn from our mistakes. In school history is taught not as a series of events or innovations, but a series of conflicts. Conflict between the corrupt Papacy and Martin Luther during the Lutheran Reformation, conflict when England the great colonizer attempted to tame China and India, conflict between the conquistadors and the savage, bloodthirsty Native Americans, all with the Westerners in the right, making the world a ‘safer’ place through force. The Americentric view is even stronger. Students are taught the rebels were able to outsmart the powerful British Empire and then became a global power in their own right, playing a vital role in European and South American affairs since then. Only after the United States joined World War I did the tides change, taking a conflict categorized by stalemates and ending it a year after joining. The United States was forced to join World War II, and once again gave the Western European Allies a fighting chance (literally and figuratively). More recently the United States has been heavily involved in conflicts in the Middle East, namely Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, and fighting the so-called “War on Terror”. The military and political motives behind these historical actions are vast and incredibly complicated, and the United States’ involvement in these conflicts is not the issue at hand. Time and again, this reasoning is glossed over and over-simplified when being taught to students, usually following a strict formula: a certain group of people or country requires assistance from the powerful United States in order to overpower an oppressive regime or aggressive actions from neighboring countries. This narrative is not reserved for schools either, it is omnipresent in public policy and in its depictions in television and movies. To add insult to injury, history classes tend to pride themselves on cultivating students’ curiosity and teaching them to investigate things on their own. Kids are being taught a singular story while simultaneously being told to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions on this biased recount of past and current events. Not only does this inadvertently curb independent thinking, it also encourages these students to trust the information they are given by their superiors when they grow up. Teaching this partial history can have a detrimental effect on the relationship between people in society. Those who blindly follow the accounts of their superiors are susceptible to misinformation, which can allow mistakes or deliberate missteps by said superiors to go unchecked. Others can take an alternate route, where they distrust most if not all told to them for fear it is incomplete. They can fall victim to misinformation of a different kind: information carefully cultivated to inspire anarchy or radicalism of some kind. This kind of divide can be exploited and used to pit the groups against each other. This kind of animosity does no one a favor. The United States, just like every other country, has made mistakes in the past, but refusing to acknowledge them makes it all the more likely more mistakes will be made in the future. It also makes society’s weaknesses more vulnerable for exploitation by those who do not mean well. Teaching a more complete version of world history can do wonders to create a more balanced society receptive to innovation. July 2020, 11th Grade
Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
|