In your opinion, should non-Americans be made to learn American history? Why or why not?

40 comments

1. I mean probably insofar as the US has influenced global events and potentially stuff in their country, they should learn that, but I don’t see why like a person in Ethiopia should need to learn who Sam Houston was or what year the Louisiana Purchase happened.

2. No, they should learn their own history. Their history is going to be more important than our history is to them.
   Having said that, I do think that certain event events in world history were influenced by American history so mention those, but do not just have completely American history classes outside of the US.

3. Ummm, no? Why should they, outside of how it relates to world history (e.g. as a factor in WWII)? What do you think we are, the Roman Empire? How presumptuous.

4. They should learn whatever they are required to in school. Otherwise live free or die.

5. Um no? Like an American history curriculum we’d have for students in the US? Not just a world history class that covers some key points about america? Why would they need that? If they want to learn US history I think it should be available for university students or something, but if a Czech person who’s going to live in Czechia his whole life was required to learn American history, that’d be weird.

6. Maybe just World War 2 in the role it played on the US being a major power. And civil war

7. No lol? Unless it’s relevant on the global stage (WW2, decolonization) or applies to their country, such as bombing of Serbia or invasion of Iraq

8. No you shouldn’t HAVE to but if you want to than yeah

9. Broad strokes, the parts that shaped the wider world. Just like us learning about the Magna Carta and shit like that.

   They probably don’t need to learn the battles of the civil war in Estonia

10. I think so. US history should be one of your education curriculum’s top 5 foreign histories to study just behind neighboring countries.

11. No I doing think they should have to do anything, seems like they know more than enough about us already damn lol I think they should learn each other’s history and learn more about South American countries, African countries and Asian countries. That will keep them busy and out our business. Plus they had a huge affect on those countries as well.

    Also learn about Canada, Australia, Mexico and New Zealand while you’re at it

12. There’s no such thing. It’s just history.

13. What the hell?

14. Only if they’re applying for citizenship, and then just the basics; otherwise no.

15. Only in as much as it affects world history.

16. No. People should learn what they want to learn. They shouldn’t be forced. I was forced to learn British history to pass my citizenship test and it wasn’t fun. It was stressful. I was shaking like a leaf on my test day. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

17. Only as it relates to their own history.

18. Only so much as it relevant to world history. I don’t think non-Americans need to go super in depth into the Civil War, just like Americans don’t need to learn a ton about the English Civil War. However, America has been a major player on the world stage for a long time now, so it becomes hard to discuss world history without talking about American history at least to some extent.

19. Haha what why? If there are parts of American history that are immediately relevant to their own history then they should learn that I guess, and then the bits that cross over into world history like Breton Woods, the Cold War, and globalization.

20. Made to? No. Who would make them do so anyway?

21. The parts that are notable to world history and to their own country’s history, sure. But they don’t need a deep dive.

22. Could you elaborate on “made to?” What would that entail? On what authority would they be forced to do this?

23. In America we are taught French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, African history…..why wouldn’t other countries learn about ours?

24. Yes. Other countries should learn it as a cautionary tale.

    Most Americans don’t even learn their own history and when they do it’s typically some watered down version that protects the ruling class. Most Americans will tell you there is no ruling class in the US. Most Americans don’t understand they live in a corporate oligarchy and even think the word oligarchy only applies to Russians.

    So don’t learn about us at your own peril.

25. As part of world history – of course. It is hard to teach 19th and 20th century history without involving the US.

26. Hell, Americans aren’t even made to learn American history anymore, at least no the true, not-so-flattering parts, which is most of it. Let’s start there.

27. I don’t care what other countries teach their students and this is an extremely weird concept.

28. It’s a hard question to answer because we don’t know what you mean by “made to” nor who you mean by non-Americans. “Should we use state education standards to require home-schooled children whose U.S.-resident parents haven’t become citizens to learn American history?” is a different (and obviously convoluted) question than “Should Poland require its adults to know American history?”

    For what its worth, American states have primary school standards that include knowledge of non-U.S. history, but much of that history is selected teleologically — America is always at the end of it. For example, we rarely study British history for its own sake; we study it to understand the origins of our people’s relationship to government, the American Revolution, the slave trade, our entries into the world wars, etc.

29. If you’re going to learn how the world has developed you cannot forgo leaning about American history. It’s a variable whether countries choose to acknowledge it or not. So, I would very much hope people are leaning it. You don’t have to get into the weeds and get the details but you should know basic stuff and how counties have worked together.

30. I cringe at the words “made to”: I can’t dictate that to another country.

    If you’re asking if I think non-Americans SHOULD learn US history, the answer is a qualified yes. Just like Americans learn more about some countries’ histories than others because of cultural similarities and historical forces, some countries “should” learn more about the US than others. It’ll matter more to them, and shed more light on their own history.

    And probably every educated global citizen should know at least a LITTLE about the US. I don’t think that’s chauvinistic, so much as a reflection of the fact that the US is the superpower of the 20th and (so far) 21st century.

31. Not really. They should only learn about American influence on their country’s history. Unless they’re really aching to learn all about America. In example, Americans learn about the French exclusively in contexts of alliances with America and such, not about France’s individual history (unless their in a world history course, which most of us did end up taking)

32. Just stuff that effects them we really don’t think we’re that important 😭😭

33. No because that’s fucking stupid. Why would I need to know about Bengali history, for example

34. We don’t care what you learn or don’t learn in your own country.

35. The history of the zip code

36. I don’t really think we should make people in other countries study anything, but… okay, look. There are a lot of countries I was only taught about in school because the US interacted with them in some way. If, from their perspective, we interacted with *them*, maybe they should mention us in the curriculum.

37. Only if they live in America as students

38. 1. They should learn parts of American history if it is relevent to their own nations history (Monroe Doctrine, Various overseas wars, etc)

    2. Americans influence on World War 1 and World War 2 should be taught (as well as British, German, Russian, etc influences)

    Other than that, I see no reason why someone in say Australia or Argentina needs to learn about the American Civil War or something.

39. Only the parts with a significant impact on theirs

40. I think we need to focus on teaching the history of Humanity over the history of countries.

    Instead of the current system of history by chronological order I think we should teach history with a focus on Humanity.

    * This history of Humans and slavery
    * The history of humans and war
    * The history of humans and economy
    * The history of humans and religion
    * The history of humans in innovation

    With the world “getting smaller” and information more readily available I don’t think it should be regionally based but humanity based. Teach the good and bad of humanity

    The nazi party isn’t “german history” but human history

    The space race isn’t US history but human history

    Anyway, I think the world should teach human history, not regional history