I wonder if it is necessary for school books to elevate a cause as 'just', to children, to keep their support of the nation or outcome. Why not just teach the relative morality of these outcomes?
I wonder if it is necessary for school books to elevate a cause as 'just', to children, to keep their support of the nation or outcome. Why not just teach the relative morality of these outcomes?
At no point did textbook or teacher make any assertion about the morality/immorality/justice/injustice of any particular side in any of them.
I didn't learn about the firebombing of Dresden from History class, I learned about it from Vonnegut. I may have learned about the bombing of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in my history class, but their moral dimension was summed up by "It made Japan surrender," which is ahistorical bullshit. I didn't learn about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment at all, nor much at all about the racial prejudice that dominated American culture for a hundred years after the civil war (and continues to have lasting effects today).
American History as taught in US high schools is hagiographic, make no mistake about it.
Surely you learned about the Trail of Tears, Slavery, and the Vietnam War?
Here in New England I can tell you that I came out of 10th grade admiring Ho Chi Minh and despising Andrew Jackson.
You can avoid moral stickers but still be biased if you selectively choose which events to dive into.
The whole thing of course, relies on an inherent ambiguity in these legends and ideals, which allows a hugely diverse country to project their own values onto them, and interpret them in a way that feels right- like the entire country believes in the same thing, when really we all believe very different things and are able to see those different beliefs in the same set of stories.
It's all kind of fractured apart since the invention of the internet. That illusion of common beliefs is hard to maintain when we can actually all talk to each other.
Even college level philosophy on the other hand.. largely moral absolutists built upon a religious foundation as opposed to say a psychological foundation.
Besides, every generation in America has rewritten their view of the events in the American Revolution. Your view is as ephemeral as the rest.
There was a plan by British colonists to stop an insurrection and treason. It didn't work, and it resulted in secession and eventual sovereign immunity preventing any further prosecution, led by the very man they did not kill. If you break the law but win your cause you get sovereign immunity, but there are still consequences, children already understand this. The teenagers that win their nation state understand this, the ones that lose understand this.
Does the American story need to be taught as "but we're the good guys"? How did we get to this outcome and were alternatives hurtful to the union? Was that a problem?