This article mentions several ways in which foreign countries teach about US history, detailing how they take a more holistic approach, and occasionally paint the US in a bad light. I included this source because, in the United States, many people tend to view The US as a savior of the world, ignoring the problematic history that it has been involved in. By teaching the real events in which the US played a role in, these foreign textbooks can show students in other countries both the good and bad parts of US history. In this, students can develop their own opinions, and therefore can think more critically about the country that they are learning about. In particular, the article discusses how different countries teach about the Spanish-American war, something that is often skipped in history classes in the United States. In the Philippines and Spain, however, the US is seen as an aggressor, even though these are countries which we have historically had very diplomatic relations with.

In the future, I can imagine using foreign textbooks occasionally in my classroom, however, I don't realistically see them becoming a staple part of my procedure. I believe that they offer a fantastic insight into the United States’ history from an outside perspective, however, they will only mention the events in which that country in question interacted with the US. Despite these limitations, I will definitely try to incorporate foreign sources as much as possible as I teach history because I believe that students have a right to form their own opinions on historical events, especially those in which their country was involved. The other issue is that there is very little time in most schools' curricula to teach American sources, and if I include foreign sources in my curriculum, my students might not get the chance to learn about more recent events, which are the ones that impact them the most. 

https://www.edutopia.org/textbook-publishing-objectivity-foreign-perspectives 

This is an interesting source to me as it argues against all my other sources. It condemns the “decentralizing of the US in diplomatic historiography”, something which has recently become more popular. The article stresses the fact that the United States was objectively one of the largest powers in post-WWII global history, and argues that this fact is being erased from modern US history classrooms. The strategy proposed in this article is to reestablish the United States as being on top during this period of history. The authors of this article do, concede, however, that international sources serve a purpose, but only to show how involved the US was in foreign policy during this time. As it attempts to re-center the US in the middle of foreign affairs during the late 20th century, the article disregards a significant amount of foreign history, simply because the US wasn't involved in the events. 

I am very conflicted about this source. On the one hand, I believe that eurocentrism is something to be avoided in history classrooms, and US history should be taught objectively. On the other hand, the article’s point that the US was objectively powerful during the 20th century is true. This is something that I have struggled with in my preparation to teach history. Teaching a de-westernized version of history is very important at a college level, however, the average student in a lower-level high school history class doesn't really need to know about certain events to have a basic understanding of history. It is my belief that history classes in secondary education should serve the purpose of teaching students how current events come to be, and describing these events’ background. While I do plan on teaching alternate opinions on US history, I think that it will be hard to shake the already institutionalized curriculum. 

https://tnsr.org/2020/04/recentering-the-united-states-in-the-historiography-of-american-foreign-relations/ 

Though the format of this article is odd, it provides a valuable insight into how foreign countries teach American history. In these foreign countries, the American revolution is either taught as a part of the enlightenment, as the catalyst to the period of decolonization, or it is simply not taught at all, except in college-level classes. This was extremely interesting to find out, especially to hear that countries such as India, Canada, and other former European colonies don't learn about this event at all, even though it did serve as the beginning of a period of rebellions against colonial powerhouses. When it was taught, it was taught in a way that showed how the revolution affected global politics, whereas in the US it is taught as being an isolated event, something that only affected us and Great Britain. This was frankly shocking to hear, as the stereotype in American history emphasizes how much we have contributed to the world, but in this case, it is the exact opposite.

This source gives a very interesting insight into how US history is taught in other countries, and how it should be taught domestically. Firstly the revolution being a result of the enlightenment is a concept I never discussed in my history classes, but I will definitely be doing it with my students. Secondly, when the revolution is taught in US history classes, I will most likely keep it as an isolated event, however, when it comes to world history, I will be teaching that it was the catalyst for other revolutions. I think that this flexibility between both US-centric and global perspectives is something that I will be bringing into my classrooms, as I can honestly see the benefits and deficiencies of both schools of thought. This is something that I hope will become more common, as it is true that schools should be teaching realistic US history, they should also not ignore the positive impacts that the United States has made. 

https://qz.com/462264/how-the-rest-of-the-world-learns-about-the-american-revolution-in-school/ 

This article focuses on the 2014 revision of the AP US History guidelines and the backlash that followed. These changes were predominantly the removal of American exceptionalism, a dangerous school of thought that taught the US could do no wrong and positively benefited the world in every way possible. This school of thought is problematic because if students are raised with this impression of the US, they are far less likely to be critical of the country’s future actions. This change coming from the College Board, a major player in the education system, virtually guaranteed that all schools that used AP standards would switch their curriculum to the updated guidelines, or else their students would not be prepared for the AP exams. This development in education is very positive, as it shows how outdated practices are being removed from the top down, which in my opinion is the only way that will produce a desired, long-lasting change. 

While I dislike most practices of the College Board, I agree with this decision of theirs. For too long students have learned about the false narrative of American Exceptionalism, and I will most certainly not be bringing this concept into my classroom. It is important for our students to learn the reality of their country’s history, not an idealized version. To accomplish this, I will carefully review any course materials I plan to use, and discard any that I find to be contradictory to my educational philosophy. Furthermore, I plan to spend several classes teaching and discussing the less pleasant aspects of US history, including topics such as slavery, native relocation, and imperialism. I believe that with these changes I will be able to teach a better and more accurate version of history than what is taught today.

https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2015/february/internationalization-of-us-history-curriculum/ 

This source gives insight not only into US history and how it is taught domestically but also how it is taught, or rather ignored, in much of the world. The article describes how other countries were taught about several historical events, such as the American Revolution, the Spanish-American War, The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and 9/11. In this, it is clear to see the biases of the countries, as well as the US’s biases. For example, the article discusses how in the US, the Muslim identity of the 9/11 attackers takes a prominent role in the telling of the attack, whereas a Pakistani textbook’s only mention of 9/11 is "On September 11, 2001, American Trade Center and other strategic positions were attacked by unidentified terrorists". This difference in teaching, even when on the same subject, shows where each country’s biases are, and how they can be avoided.

In my classroom, I anticipate including a variety of sources on historical events, specifically when the US interacted with another country. For example, when discussing 9/11, it would be interesting to include sources from the home countries of the attackers, as well as the United States’ allies, as this would create a better understanding of the actual event, as well as the global aftermath of it. Every conflict that the United States has been a part of has another side, another story, and I believe that learning these will help students understand the reality of US and global history, as well as draw their own conclusions about these historical events. 

https://www.mic.com/articles/168999/how-us-history-is-taught-around-the-world 

My name is Bennett Clifford, a secondary education/history major. My research for this project was centered around reevaluating the way which we teach US history. During my time in the public school system, I did not learn much about other perspectives of American history. To change this, my research focused on the ways which other countries teach American history.