In my research to understand where this "telling" of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent American presence in the Philippines came from, I found that the National Standards for United States History sets these unit objectives for students in their study of the Philippine-American War:
- Students will explain the causes of American imperialist policies and values in the 1890's.
- Student will evaluate the arguments for and against the U.S. annexation and subjugation of the Philippine islands and their people.
What are the purposes of these objectives? What are the "values" the students will explain? Parents should examine the text books as well as the lesson plans created for these standards and their objectives. The lesson plans for this historical event teach that the U.S. victory over Spain in the Spanish American war made the U.S., the "New Spain", a imperial empire builder whose "values of assimilation" oppressed the native peoples. These lessons teach students to "examine" the American imperialist policies and values that stem from "the American people’s belief that they had a sacred obligation to spread their institutions and way of life." I have watched as this curriculum has progressed and it is clear to me that it is designed to convince students that America's "superpower" status was gained through religious oppression, capitalist greed, and "white" supremacy.
This characterization of America as an imperial colonial power steeped in hypocrisy starts early in history text books. The curriculum portrays westward expansion as American imperial designs on the globe and suggests that "American Values" were the height of arrogance and cultural insensitivity; that at best westward expansion was misguided and at worst it was a malicious destruction of cultures. These lessons have students evaluate America's past by asking students whether the U.S. was "justified" in settling Texas, the Southwest, Utah and the Great Basin, California, Oregon, and the Pacific Northwest; purchasing Alaska, annexing the islands of Santo Domingo in the Caribbean, and the "territorial expansion" involving Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, and the islands of the Philippines.As we have daily discussed this series of lessons with my son and tried to provide more perspective and context that has been completely omitted in class, we have been receiving our own education in the political design behind this telling of our nation's history. Yesterday's lesson on the "Philippine-American War" was particularly interesting to me. How is it that in a discussion of international conflict the lesson contained no substantive discussion of the realities of international relations at the time? Britain and Germany had fleets in the region and McKinley realized the choice he faced was not whether or not to liberate the islands, but which of three nations -- the United States, Germany, or Britain -- would control them. Giving them back to Spain was ridiculous, turning them over to France and Germany (our commercial rivals in the Orient) was bad business, and even if they could be saved from the rule of a stronger nation they were in no state to be self governed.
The U.S. projected power in the Pacific as a reaction to the imperial designs of Japan and the other nations. In Hawaii for example, the Japanese were attempting to counter the American settlement in those islands by sending their own immigrants to the islands. The Hawaiians rejected these immigrants and as a result Japan sent war ships to the coast, not a fact you will find in my Son's history text book. My son was taught that capitalist interests in the Islands were the reason for the U.S. annexing Hawaii as well as the driving reason behind the entry into the War with Spain. There are many historical facts that were completely omitted that contradict that assertions. First, the Hawaii annexation was opposed by the business interests of the sugar beat farmers of the western continental United States and the southern Democrats who opposed it because of racial bigotry. These internal factions were the reason President McKinley couldn't get congressional support for the action. McKinley himself was not a fan of the idea of annexing Hawaii but felt pushed to by the presence of Japanese war ships in Hawaii and with the annexation of Hawaii, the Philippines as a military base seemed all the more logical.
I would have encouraged a robust evaluation of the decision to enter the Spanish-American War and a discussion of how history might have been impacted had America not projecting power in the Pacific at that time. Theodore Roosevelt saw the changing nature of the world, the fast pace of technological advancement, and the imperial designs of Japan and other nations and predicted an impending world conflict. It was his belief that America was not prepared for world conflict and needed to get prepared, that America needed to show those world powers that we could compete on the world stage. Those who shared this view sought to strengthen American Navel power, project navel power in the Pacific, and expand trade in our hemisphere. Certainly an examination of these ideas might contradict the idea that Americas designs were imperial. With proper context students might conclude that while the Spanish-American War was offensive the actions taken may indeed reveal a great foresight that contributed to a strong defense in a world quickly advancing toward world war.
While it is true that Americans believed that freedom was a gift from God and that their Republic was the most effective form of Government in preserving these God given rights, it is hardly "imperial" to want other nations to be as equally blessed by such freedoms. Among economic trade and military concerns about Spain's outpost in the western hemisphere, Americans were sympathetic to the plight of Cubans who struggled against a bloody military state only 60 miles from their shores. Wanting free trade with nations in our hemisphere and to extend greater freedom to those nations is hardly "imperial" either. Yet it is the effort to spread such freedom and prosperity that the curriculum portrays as arrogance and cultural insensitivity.
My husband asked my son if the lesson at school had taught them of the great strides America made to establish healthcare in the disease ridden island countries which reeled from epidemics of cholera, plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, and malaria? Or the conflicts the U.S. engaged in with Muslim raiders who exploited tribal warfare and took slaves from native and colonists populations? Of course any noble effort was omitted. The greatest omission being the fact that if America were truly set on imperial interests overseas their actions are puzzling. They limited their presence legally by setting target dates for their withdrawal and the independence of the territories and they kept to it. Never before in history had a nation so willingly and, in general, peacefully rescinded control over so much territory and so many conquered people as in the case of the possessions taken in the Spanish-American War.
What are students meant to conclude when the so called "American expansion" is attributed to motivations arising from "capitalist greed", "christian zealotry", and "a raw competitive drive for national power and prestige?" When students are asked to evaluate "American values" and then taught that those values were based on arrogant "white, Anglo-Saxon" notions that "western nations were superior to the 'inferior' peoples of the world," that the American desire to advance the progress of the world and spread "their principles, institutions, and religion" was self serving and imperialistic, students conclude that America's rise to world leadership was unjustified and that America is a great imperial oppressor.
*For an example of the lesson plans for the Philippine-American War provided to U.S. history teachers under the National History Standards, see this lesson plan from the National Center for History in the Schools, at UCLA.
No comments:
Post a Comment