How should World War I be taught in American schools?
The goal of teaching American history has long been the creation of citizens who are loyal to this narrative and are willing to take action to support it.
When taught in this manner, World War I signals the arrival of the United States on the global stage – as defenders of democracy and agents for global peace.
The world history curriculum has tended to focus on the ways in which economic, cultural and technological processes have led to increasingly close global interconnections.
When the work of world historians is incorporated into the school curriculum, the stated goal is most often global understanding.
In the case of World War I, it’s possible to tell a story about increasing industrialism, imperialism and competition for global markets, as well as the deadly integration of new technologies into battle, such as tanks, airplanes, poison gas, submarines and machine guns.
In all three sets of state standards, students are expected to learn about World War I in relationship to American expansion into such places as Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaii.
By contrast, the world history standards of all three states place World War I under its own heading, asking students to examine the war’s causes and consequences.
All three sets of state standards reference large-scale historical processes as the causes of the war, including nationalism, imperialism and militarism.
Scholars today continue to debate the wisdom of President Wilson’s moral diplomacy – that is, the moral and altruistic language (like making the world “safe for democracy”) that justified U.S. involvement in World War I. At the same time, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center has shown that the American public has deep concerns about the policy of promoting democracy abroad.
In my own view, it seems incomplete to teach just one of these conflicting views of World War I. Instead, I would recommend to history teachers that they explore competing perspectives of the past with their students.