History

Finally someone understood. Its honestly hard for people to perceive the world after they have been pounded with history from a certain country. Of course theres going to be a degree of historical distortion. Nevertheless, I must say that not all educators fall for pro U.S history. When we bring new stories to history, that typically aren't the ones expected (ie, like the ones in history looks), we give the audience a greater understanding of history. As we get older, teachers begin to stress the importance of primary documents and they venture into these alternatives in hopes of giving students a better understanding. Is it worth it? Of course, there are benefits for students to develop pride of their country, which can be done through History, but it is better for them to have an objective stance as it allows them to explore the views of different groups in the same historical context.

In addition, most of us tend to rely on foreign news sources, such as BBC. This action is a representation of our acknowledgement that U.S media may influence and be partially bias - in favor of the U.S. As citizens, it is to our convenience to have a proper understanding of the issue in order to develop stronger approaches.

Our perception of history can also be changed if we study a subject from the perspective of a marginalized or uncommon group. There are certain times in history where we have generally followed U.S or European countries and their actions, but never have we considered looking at the situation from a bystander. In addition, there are groups that were incredibly affected and played a major role in events, but historians don't focus on their voice.

Viewing history from different areas is incredibly essential, the only problem that may come into play is whether or not the reader intends on being objective or more well rounded. An objective story would be the hardest the achieve.