"Watching Big Brother"

Textbooks teach us that our government is the "people's servant, manageable and tractable."  By portraying the federal government in this way, textbooks manage to "underplay the role of non governmental institutions or private citizens in bringing about improvements in the environment, race relations, education, and other social issues."  We want to see the nation as a hero, not doing anything wrong.  If the federal government does something wrong, textbooks would like us to believe that we were misunderstood or we misunderstood the situation.  It is much easier to live in a state that is free from errors and always strives to be the good guy, but what if this is not the case?  Should we believe it to remain complacent, or should we truly study our history and events to analyze WHY we make the decisions we make?

The United States foreign policy is never far from controversy even in today's world.  Current Americans see and question what we are seeing our government do in other countries; however, what will our children think 20 years from now?  Will they think all Americans agree with our policies; will they believe that there was just one, simple explanation for our actions, or will they see the governments actions as multifaceted and see the need to look deeper?  This is not likely; after all, they didn't live through the event just as we didn't live through Vietnam, making our judgements of Vietnam based on the textbook's viewpoint that we were taught from in school; they are likely to do the same with the U.S.'s current foreign policies.   Textbooks typically leave out underlying issues that affect foreign policy, for example multinationals, who influence policy through their desire for economic gain in a country.  Scary, right?  Textbooks often leave out statements such as, all "the people in charge of U.S. foreign policy were on the Rockerfeller family payroll," surely this causes some type of conflict of interest, and readers should made aware of these alternative motivations.  However,  textbooks steer clear of portraying the government in any sort of controversial light, instead they present the policies as a "rational humanitarian response" without exploring the issues surrounding a policy or without questioning the government's response decision.

Let's not ignore the government's actions; instead, let's REALLY look at them.  For example, what really is our executive branch and federal agencies doing in the rest of the world?  We are aware that the CIA goes into other nations "secure" our safety.  However, when I visited the National Spy Museum in Washington, D.C. this summer, I learned about incidents that my textbooks or teachers left out while I was in school, for example, the hostage situation in Iran in the 1970s.  Ironically enough, they are about to release a movie on the crisis.  Doesn't this raise the question that true history interests Americans more than the "boring" history that so many students complain about?  The executive branch has historically engaged in secretive, covert action.  Can this still be considered a part of a democracy if the American people have no way of knowing the government's actions to oppose them?  I think not.  These policies are shortsighted and abandon the American people for alternative gain and simply blaming national security as the culprit.

The questions our textbooks should answer is why was national security at risk; does it justify the nation's actions; what could have been done differently; how did the policy affect relationships abroad and in the nation?  If these questions cannot be adequately answered, it may be necessary to research further to understand the historical event.  Teachers should take note to this: if the textbooks are not going to present all the facts, there are other resources out there.  Use primary sources, then students can interpret information straight from the horse's mouth, instead of summarized, revised information.

I may have guessed some of the foreign policies, but some the internal policies, frankly, blew me away.  The FBI and Presidents allowed for many of the injustices against African Americans to be committed. I guess I knew some of that from watching shows on television but definitely not from my textbook.  I knew there was racism within the federal government, but I did not realize at the level they went to perpetuate segregation.  The FBI spied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. through bugging; they used their information to blackmail the civil right's leader.  What is most troubling is that the FBI failed to alert the leader of death threats that they considered serious.  The U.S. federal government is credited with the end of the Civil Right's Movement by textbooks, sure they mention historical figures, such as Dr. King, now, but that doesn't stop them from glorifying the government's role in ending segregation.  The government, eventually, did pass laws that would benefit the civil right's movement; however, this is far from the whole story, and the American people have a right to know all of it.