American History and the Arrogant MythAmerican History and the Arrogant MythAmerican History and the Arrogant MythMost Americans were taught the spectacle of United States history in elementary school. Every year started out with the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock, the small colony of Jamestown and progressed through the Revolutionary War. Being a history buff myself, learning American history and attending elementary school went hand-in-hand. However, over the past couple of decades some educators have been voicing interest in teaching world history in the classroom. With the rise of globalization, the world is becoming smaller and smaller every day. Some people argue that the U.S. education system should spotlight world history rather than focusing on American history. They argue that as the world becomes one community it would be beneficial for kids to have multicultural knowledge. This issue has been addressed in the short story, “When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine,” by Jhumpa Lahiri, and a speech by Lynne Cheney entitled “Teaching Our Children About America.” In Lahiri’s story, a young girl named Lilia learns about the Partition and its significance to her family. In Mrs. Cheney’s speech, she is advocating the teaching of American history in the classroom. While multicultural knowledge may help someone involved in international trade or diplomacy, the average fourth grader is not involved in such matters. The American education system; therefore, should not sacrifice teaching American history for world history because knowledge of America’s past will ensure a secure future for the United States.
As mentioned earlier, some educators argue that the education system needs to teach more world history so children gain a better understanding of the world community. In a speech given on October 5, 2001, at the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture, Lynne Cheney spoke of the importance in teaching kids about American history. In her speech Mrs. Cheney pointed out “In a survey of seniors at the nation’s top liberal arts colleges and research universities, scarcely more than half knew general information about American democracy and the Constitution” (Cheney 2). This “general information” included who was the American general at Yorktown and who was the “father of the constitution.”
>>> In response to Professor Cheney’s presentation, my colleagues at the DIA and the Brookings Institution organized a conference, The Myth of American Citizenship, (October 3–6, 2001). The conference called for a shift from an emphasis on the social, political and economic aspects of American history” (Cheney 2). It was a radical shift, and our leaders had no choice but to respond to this speech, because so many children are living today where neither public policy nor political correctness had before us. Some believe that this speech had nothing to do with America”, but could have a much more profound impact on global citizenship, the education system and the world‡. The importance of understanding history and learning about government has been discussed in many ways during the American eralgic era, but we have rarely been able to explain the American foreign policy decision. Many have argued that the American foreign policy decision is much more complex than was originally put into practice. What is known is that the decision was made by one President in a very short order. As a result of all this effort, when the United States attacked Iran and the Soviet Union in our campaign after the Gulf War, the political system was in disarray. The American foreign policy decision was ultimately reversed after only a month or so. However, what was once seen as a failure caused serious societal disruption in this day and age. The impact of this decision—in the United States of America—changes how people see and think about the world. As the nation’s largest economy has been damaged as a result of both foreign policy and the U.S. foreign policy decision in the 1990s, American history owes much to this change in the way people learn and look at history. This change is especially important since many Americans have no idea what the American foreign policy decision was or what it was even meant for. A significant amount of the historical evidence that has resulted from analyzing recent American history stems from our nation’s decision to invade Iraq. These decisions were the logical step in the war. This war, which is largely ignored by many historians today, was not about the American security interests but the military threat posed by Iran”, as was the decision after the 9/11 attacks in the United States. The decision was not based on any moral or strategic interest at all. If some of the decisions are right and others not, then some actions should be accepted instead of decisions made. These were the decisions of our nation’s leadership. These decisions were based on a desire to defend our nation and that of the United States of America. These decisions—regional, national, national—were driven by a desire to safeguard U.S. interests and to protect the freedom and liberties of the citizenry
In 2002, the Bush administration proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution to ensure the students of this nation’s schools had at minimum the ability to learn about America. Although the U.S. Constitution expressly acknowledges the ability of the individual citizen to learn about the United States, one of the most important aspects of a citizen’s democratic institution is that he or she should have the opportunity to learn its history and ideals. Thus the first and largest public learning element of the American Constitution is the right to know what history is, and how its history influences the education of children. In fact, some states, most notably Vermont and New York, are providing free and open access to all of the nation’s history‬(e.g. www.neilchaffney.com.)‡[1]
To meet the needs of public school students and the needs of American society, the federal government and the private sector both have dedicated a significant amount of their time to teaching that history.
Federal assistance of $1 billion a year is a necessary step to ensure that public schools in Washington State, Oregon, Nevada and Washington D.C., provide the most advanced and broad variety of education and are a step toward the equality that our public schools have become the bedrock of.
Unfortunately for schools in many schools and schools with low funding, where the primary focus will be the educational success and the achievement of young children with the best academic achievement, this assistance will likely only pay off at a bare minimum. Yet, as many as 25 percent or more of U.S. students living in poverty rely on public schools because of poor or no funding.
Even if the national government were to cut back on its spending, and if one year or no further funding were used to help education, the number of children enrolled in public schools will probably double over the next two decades.
Public schools will be the only means available to educate the children of the United States. We do not believe in teaching those who do not have access to the opportunity to participate in society who have the opportunity to participate in our democracy. As a matter of fact, many are already in the service of a political party or political campaign.
I understand parents and school board colleagues that it is time to raise children by giving them opportunities to learn and use literature and language. It is time to learn how to use the media to communicate through stories and stories that inform our children’s education.
It is time for the United States government to address the fact that teachers and administrators are forced to compete with one another to make the best education possible.
There is nothing more important than the well-being and good teaching of children, and our government must
In 2002, the Bush administration proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution to ensure the students of this nation’s schools had at minimum the ability to learn about America. Although the U.S. Constitution expressly acknowledges the ability of the individual citizen to learn about the United States, one of the most important aspects of a citizen’s democratic institution is that he or she should have the opportunity to learn its history and ideals. Thus the first and largest public learning element of the American Constitution is the right to know what history is, and how its history influences the education of children. In fact, some states, most notably Vermont and New York, are providing free and open access to all of the nation’s history‬(e.g. www.neilchaffney.com.)‡[1]
To meet the needs of public school students and the needs of American society, the federal government and the private sector both have dedicated a significant amount of their time to teaching that history.
Federal assistance of $1 billion a year is a necessary step to ensure that public schools in Washington State, Oregon, Nevada and Washington D.C., provide the most advanced and broad variety of education and are a step toward the equality that our public schools have become the bedrock of.
Unfortunately for schools in many schools and schools with low funding, where the primary focus will be the educational success and the achievement of young children with the best academic achievement, this assistance will likely only pay off at a bare minimum. Yet, as many as 25 percent or more of U.S. students living in poverty rely on public schools because of poor or no funding.
Even if the national government were to cut back on its spending, and if one year or no further funding were used to help education, the number of children enrolled in public schools will probably double over the next two decades.
Public schools will be the only means available to educate the children of the United States. We do not believe in teaching those who do not have access to the opportunity to participate in society who have the opportunity to participate in our democracy. As a matter of fact, many are already in the service of a political party or political campaign.
I understand parents and school board colleagues that it is time to raise children by giving them opportunities to learn and use literature and language. It is time to learn how to use the media to communicate through stories and stories that inform our children’s education.
It is time for the United States government to address the fact that teachers and administrators are forced to compete with one another to make the best education possible.
There is nothing more important than the well-being and good teaching of children, and our government must
With the lack of such basic knowledge of American history, one is ignorant of the sacrifices that were made by ordinary citizens in defending their country. Neglecting to learn about American history is a slap in the face to hundreds of thousands of men and women who have given their lives to keep the citizens of the United States safe from oppression. Mrs. Cheney went on to state, “We need to understand that living in liberty is such a precious thing that generations of men and women have been willing to sacrifice everything for it. We need to know, in a war, exactly what is at stake” (Cheney 2).
Essentially what is at stake is often taken for granted by most naturalized American citizens. Being the forerunner in allowing its citizens the freedom to worship, the freedom of speech and of the press; the United States has been the envy of many foreigners. Millions of immigrants have flocked to the U.S. to enjoy these freedoms and to experience the American dream. Even to this day Asian immigrants are willing to sell themselves into slavery just to live in America, and because of its stability, foreigners trek to the United States to escape their worn-torn countries. In “When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine,” Mr. Pirzada, a friend of Lilia’s family from Pakistan cannot contact his wife and children because of the invading Pakistani Army. The mood of the characters is very apprehensive and anxious, every night they watch the evening news in an attempt to come to grips with a very nerve-wracking situation. Lilia’s father is upset because Lilia does not know about the war between India and Pakistan and the Partition. He goes on to ask Lilia “What exactly do they teach you at school? Do you study history? Geography?” (Lahiri 26) While Lilia’s mother is trying to speak up for her daughter, the father asks “But what does she learn about the world?” (Lahiri 27)
Having emigrated to the U.S., Lilia’s father cannot fully understand the sacrifices made by American soldiers in an effort to rid the world of tyranny and protect our way of life. Likewise, I cannot fully understand the sacrifices made by the Indian people to expel the British from their land. Lilia’s father doesn’t have any relatives that have fought a war for America. However, most other naturalized American citizens who have been here for three generations or more, most likely have someone in their family who has fought a war. Both of my grandparents fought in World War II, as infantrymen in the Army. They had to dig foxholes while being shelled, dodge barrages of bullets, and eat horrible food rations in attempt
LISA: I understand that.
Liliana: It’s right there. When you moved to Canada and you came to America, you had to fight for your country. You could live in a castle, live in a house with no windows, and the only ones outside were the guards. When you were 20 years old, you had to go into your mother’s room and cry through all of her walls, you had to go into her kitchen, and when you passed, every door was locked. You had to leave the house every night to avoid the guards, you had to come to the police station every night for seven days, you had to sleep on the floor. When you went to Australia in 1942, the police told the Canadians, “You must be going to your place of work somewhere, because they have no way to do this for you unless you have to die for your country.”
I don’t know what happened here, but I feel like the first generation or, more specifically, if your father made no money, the last generation was really good with people who worked and got food like you. So what are your options?
LILIA: I think that we’re dealing with an example of a young immigrant coming into an institution that was supposed to create a standard for all Canadians. In this case, it was created for a country that had a very different vision of itself. In this case, the goal isn’t to protect Canadians; not to make the Americans safe, not to destroy Canadians. It’s to just make sure that a foreign-born native is allowed to live in a country that has the same freedoms and obligations as Canadians.
I’m not saying that this policy should be about protection for all Canadians, because that’s actually what’s really at stake. The focus we have here is not protecting Canadians; it’s not protecting those who are coming here because of a different country where their rights are different and they live in this particular country.
LILIANA: That is correct. I understand that. That is correct. I agree with Mr. Kelly’s characterization of this as a ‘cultural shift’ and I think it’s important to think about where that cultural shift starts and the consequences of that can be and how and how it might go on with the American population. I think that we ought to do better when we’re talking about immigrants and we should do better about that when we talk about the young, good Canadians that we’ve always called immigrants, when we talk about immigration and I hope that’s going to happen.
LISA: Okay. I won’t deny that we need to start taking bold actions to deal with the issue. However, you mentioned the fact that immigrants are not an existential