I teach middle school US History and when we get to Manifest Destiny we spend a couple days analyzing John Gast's "American Progress." In that assignment we draw their attention to the people groups represented in it, Anglo-Americans and Native Americans. After studying it they do write a perspective peace comparing and contrasting how the two groups would experience Westward Expansion differently. One group experiences many negative consequences while the other benefits significantly. I would never ask them to straight up identify the positives and negatives, rather we try to have them think from the perspectives of the two groups involved.
Is my approach a different version of the same question? Or is it a better way to approach the discussion? Thanks
Hi Chance. Thanks so much for sharing this. This is a wonderful example of how a primary source can help students to think through how Manifest Destiny was represented and how it may have been interpreted by different groups.
This is one of those, "I would like to see the whole worksheet/lessons" before I can pass judgement.
I only say that because I know in the previous two states I've taught in the standards wants students to analyze arguments <i>for</i> and <i>against</i>imperialism. I typically did this through some primary sources analysis, a little Mark Twain for good measure. However, using language like "Positive" does give a reader a moment of pause. "Positive?" Were the effects really positive outside of the POV of an imperialist? If that's truly what we were going for here (naval bases, economic markets & resources) then this form of comparison should have been framed in a much better way.
The way the question is framed calls more for a political than a historical response. Imperialism is one of those dirty words that means different things to different people. I'm reminded of the hilarious scene in The Life of Brian where the revolutionaries ponder "what have the Romans done for us?" and conclude, well, the aqueduct, medicine, roads, sanitation, irrigation, education, wine, fresh water, public health and "they're the only ones who can keep the peace around here". They conclude it's best to just shut up about it.
I teach middle school US History and when we get to Manifest Destiny we spend a couple days analyzing John Gast's "American Progress." In that assignment we draw their attention to the people groups represented in it, Anglo-Americans and Native Americans. After studying it they do write a perspective peace comparing and contrasting how the two groups would experience Westward Expansion differently. One group experiences many negative consequences while the other benefits significantly. I would never ask them to straight up identify the positives and negatives, rather we try to have them think from the perspectives of the two groups involved.
Is my approach a different version of the same question? Or is it a better way to approach the discussion? Thanks
Hi Chance. Thanks so much for sharing this. This is a wonderful example of how a primary source can help students to think through how Manifest Destiny was represented and how it may have been interpreted by different groups.
This is one of those, "I would like to see the whole worksheet/lessons" before I can pass judgement.
I only say that because I know in the previous two states I've taught in the standards wants students to analyze arguments <i>for</i> and <i>against</i>imperialism. I typically did this through some primary sources analysis, a little Mark Twain for good measure. However, using language like "Positive" does give a reader a moment of pause. "Positive?" Were the effects really positive outside of the POV of an imperialist? If that's truly what we were going for here (naval bases, economic markets & resources) then this form of comparison should have been framed in a much better way.
I agree that we really need additional information to offer a more thorough assessment.
And I just realized I cannot italicize words on substack, at least in the comments - booooo
The way the question is framed calls more for a political than a historical response. Imperialism is one of those dirty words that means different things to different people. I'm reminded of the hilarious scene in The Life of Brian where the revolutionaries ponder "what have the Romans done for us?" and conclude, well, the aqueduct, medicine, roads, sanitation, irrigation, education, wine, fresh water, public health and "they're the only ones who can keep the peace around here". They conclude it's best to just shut up about it.
You said: "The way the question is framed calls more for a political than a historical response."
That's another way to view it. Thanks.