U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism

[katautumn]

Yes, when Americans lead an armed insurrection that has the backing of the United States Armed Forces and depose the legitimate sovereign government, that constitutes imperialism.

No it doesn't. If we had gone in and taken the country over and they were under the control of our president and were considered citizens of our country then it would be imperialism.

Of course you seem to be confusing the term and assuming that we can't be "imperialistic" without having an "Imperial" form of government.

The article from the OP stated that the textbooks originally labeled the "founding" of America as "imperialism". We're not arguing whether or not we've ever committed acts that mirror those of imperialist nations. The initial objection I had was to labeling our nation's founding as "imperialism". We can't just make up definitions to suit our opinions.

Except for the part where our military forced their way into the Iolani Palace and made Queen Liliuokalani surrender her rule at gunpoint, amirite?

Look, I'll concede that not all of American history is pretty and I don't see the point in shielding students from the successes and mistakes this country has made. With that said, we're taking one example and trying to prove America is predominantly imperialist.

In that case, if some, say, Japanese immigrants where you are living break into your State Governor's mansion, hold him at gunpoint and force him to swear fealty to the Imperial Throne of Japan, you won't mind?

Of course I'd mind, but we're not presently forcing out way into countries and taking them over.

America has done quite a bit of stuff we can hate, remember Executive Order 9066?

That wasn't right, but we had never seen a terrorist attack on American soil before and there were Japanese immigrants in America who were sympathizers of the Japanese terrorists. The government made a terrible mistake, but they made it under the suspicion that we were in danger of being attacked from the inside. Like I said - America isn't perfect, but we aren't evil either, and that's what some kids are being taught in school today by these globalism loving, America-hating, commie teachers.

 

[laconicstudent]

No it doesn't. If we had gone in and taken the country over and they were under the control of our president and were considered citizens of our country then it would be imperialism.

Could you please read that sentence? It doesn't make any sense at all.

And since you are no doubt trying to argue that we didn't take them over:

A bunch of Americans formed a cabal, and brought ashore United States Marines as part of their coup. The Republic of Hawaii was an 8 year formality while the political uproar in Washington died down, since even the President of the United States at the time, Grover Cleveland, described it as "an act of war", along with the resistance movements.

Come on, even Congress admits that the Overthrow of Hawaii was an American act.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Title: A joint resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

The fact that the United States is directly responsible for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii is literally the law.

The article from the OP stated that the textbooks originally labeled the "founding" of America as "imperialism".

We were colonies founded by European empires. I don't see the issue.

We're not arguing whether or not we've ever committed acts that mirror those of imperialist nations. The initial objection I had was to labeling our nation's founding as "imperialism". We can't just make up definitions to suit our opinions.

Of course not. That is why we label the rapid colonization of the eastern coast of the United States several hundred years ago "Imperialistic"

The definition of "Imperialism" is:

n.1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

I would say we easily fit that criteria.

Look, I'll concede that not all of American history is pretty and I don't see the point in shielding students from the successes and mistakes this country has made. With that said, we're taking one example and trying to prove America is predominantly imperialist.

Historically, we generally have been. Not to the extent of the Europeans, but we definitely, historically had our own little empire set up in the Pacific and Central/South America. Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

Of course I'd mind, but we're not presently forcing out way into countries and taking them over.

Not presently, no. We only did that a little over a hundred years ago. And we finally managed to give Panama back the canal in 1999.

That wasn't right, but we had never seen a terrorist attack on American soil before and there were Japanese immigrants in America who were sympathizers of the Japanese terrorists.

So that justifies emulating the Nazis, does it? By that logic, the concentration camps were justified seeing as the Third Reich would have been concerned about Jewish terrorism.

The government made a terrible mistake, but they made it under the suspicion that we were in danger of being attacked from the inside.

A conclusion for which there was absolutely no evidence, or even a hint.

Like I said - America isn't perfect, but we aren't evil either,

Good thing no one is arguing that.

and that's what some kids are being taught in school today by these globalism loving, America-hating, commie teachers.

Please tell me you are joking. Just because we acknowledge that we have been pretty awful and aren't the salt of the earth doesn't mean we are "america-hating".

And what is wrong with being a globalist or a communist anyways? You seem to be banking on that the readers of this thread will have a knee-jerk reaction and have the assumption that Communism and Globalism is somehow un-American or un-Christian.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

But an experiment about which our students must be thoroughly educated if we wish them to meaningfully participate in it and uphold its values. In American classrooms, world history should be focused on the civilizations and ideas that most directly contributed to our own. All citizens should have that knowledge; "broader" knowledge can be properly reserved for higher education.

I'm taking American History right now, and we've gone from Columbus to the 1920's in about 7 months, and we get as in depth as we can. World history should be about, ya' know, the history of the world. We learn about American history... In American History.

As for the U.S. being Imperialistic, I think it's more interventionist then imperialistic.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

"We're pretty awful."

Well, I guess that depends on how you look at it. In comparison to other empires throughout history, we're pretty decent. If one holds to a cloud-in-the-sky view of the world in which we all hold hands and get along.. well I would suggest floating on back to unicorn island.

YouTube - Charlie : Candy Mountain

 

[laconicstudent]

"We're pretty awful."

Well, I guess that depends on how you look at it. In comparison to other empires throughout history, we're pretty decent. If one holds to a cloud-in-the-sky view of the world in which we all hold hands and get along.. well I would suggest floating on back to unicorn island.

YouTube - Charlie : Candy Mountain

.......Who are you talking to?

 

[Mr. Ripley]

You.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

You.

You who?

 

[Mr. Ripley]

The poster who asked the question?

 

[laconicstudent]

You.

That's funny. I never said, "We're pretty awful".

Please edit that out of your post. I dislike having people claim I said things when I actually didn't, and it constitutes goading under the forum rules.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

"Just because we acknowledge that we have been pretty awful.."

We are/we were. In the (unspecified) past, we were pretty awful; today, we're not pretty awful?

 

[laconicstudent]

"Just because we acknowledge that we have been pretty awful.."

We are/we were. In the (unspecified) past, we were pretty awful; today, we're not pretty awful?

I nowhere addressed the present, I was speaking to the past, and assuming that since we haven't massacred any indigenous people groups recently, we might be somewhat more ethical then in the past.

It does confuse me though how you managed to confuse my "We were awful" with "We are awful"

"Were" and "Are" are not interchangeable. When you substitute them, you change the meaning of my statement, and I don't particularly care for it.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

You seem to have a pretty decent grasp of history. Are you aware of the notion of presentism?

 

[trunks2k]

I'm surprised there's so much effort put on more contemporary history. When I was in school, we rarely went beyond the civil war period. When we talked about 20th century history, it was: we won WWI, a lot of people were poor and out of work, FDR became president, Japan attacked us, look at all the Jews that died!, we beat Hitler (oh and btw, Russia helped us out a little tiny bit but we'll all but ignore them because they weren't that important), we nuke japan.

Never really talked about anything post WWII until I took an elective that specifically focused on the 50s through the late 70s. Which is sad, really. I think way too much time was spent focusing on the revolution, when more modern history, especially post WWII is a lot more useful in understanding the world as it is today.

 

[citizenthom]

I'm taking American History right now, and we've gone from Columbus to the 1920's in about 7 months

And in U.S. History, how much have you discussed the European Enlightenment, the development of Protestant Christianity, Locke, Tocqueville, the British legal system, the French Revolution, etc.? Not much, I'd assume, because those are all "world" events. But they are world events that are essential to your understanding the roots of the American system of government and society. Mansa Musa is not.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

And in U.S. History, how much have you discussed the European Enlightenment, the development of Protestant Christianity, Locke, Tocqueville, the British legal system, the French Revolution, etc.? Not much, I'd assume, because those are all "world" events. But they are world events that are essential to your understanding the roots of the American system of government and society. Mansa Musa is not.

We covered the Renlightement in World History. And how on earth are most of those essential to my understanding of the American political system?

 

[citizenthom]

We covered the Renlightement in World History. And how on earth are most of those essential to my understanding of the American political system?

The fact that you don't know should nicely illustrate my point for the people who have studied those subjects. Protestant Christianity is quite simply where this nation came from. Locke and Tocqueville first espoused the very concepts of liberty and government upon which our Constitution is based. The British legal system is the root of our own, and understanding it informs one's understanding of both our Constitution and our state common laws. And the French Revolution is the most relevant revolution contemporary to our own, and the differences between ours and theirs provide a vital contrast to understanding why ours worked in the long-term.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Understanding the basis of thought which forms the system of government is the most important information about political science there is..

 

[Marek]

Understanding the basis of thought which forms the system of government is the most important information about political science there is..

I agree it is very important, but there are also other goals of history/political science education, such as fostering respect for other cultures, looking at the world from various perspectives, and insight from comparative politics, to name a few. We can't focus on just one element of political science while ignoring the rest.

 

[citizenthom]

I agree it is very important, but there are also other goals of history/political science education, such as fostering respect for other cultures, looking at the world from various perspectives, and insight from comparative politics, to name a few.

And these are all laudable goals for higher education. But public education speaks to what we need out of the entire citizenry, not just the more enlightened ones. To meet those needs, public education must be Anglo-centric to some degree. You have to understand your own country first, before "comparative" knowledge has any meaning whatsoever.

 

[peadar1987]

The majority of people everywhere are ignorant about history. I meet people over here who think Ireland is still a part of the UK, and check out this: Auschwitz is a beer, schoolchildren tell researchers - Telegraph

Even without the general ignorance of the population at large, history is taught in such a partisan way. Americans aren't generally taught about the fact that the Soviet Union was probably the single biggest cause of Allied Victory in WW2, the Brits don't get told that the potato famine that killed between 1 and 4 million Irish people was almost completely their fault, and over here, we tend to gloss over the fact that Ireland was bogged down in the Dark Ages by the Catholic Church until about 1995.