An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror

Patriotism and National Identity: How is declassification of information on the Coup of 1953 linked to patriotism and nationalism in the U.S.? The CIAs role in the 1953 coup in Iran remained classified until the early 2000s, some details of these events remain classified today. While the story of US intervention for the Shah acknowledged in Iran, few US citizens are aware of the coup of 1953. Think about how these different versions of the same historical era can affect relations between the US and Iran. The purpose of teaching US history to students has long been debated. In the past the subject of History has been used to promote nationalism and teach nation identity. Questions and challenges regarding the notion of one common ‘national identity’ have led to debates regarding inclusion of controversial topics in history textbooks. Some argue that incidents such as protests of the 1960s or the coup of 1953 may be perceived as unpatriotic and students should not be exposed to negative national history. After reading Kinzer’s book, do you think the coup in Iran should be taught or remembered as part of US history? What are the benefits of remembering/ forgetting this story? Is it patriotic/unpatriotic to criticize the US involvement in such events? How is knowledge of events like the Coup of 1953 related to national identity, or nationalism, within the U.S.? “Real” Story-How should researchers/students deal with the issue of ‘fake news’ when trying to learn/record significant historical events? Look through the National Security Archive’s essay “Iran 1953: The Strange Odyssey of Kermit Roosevelt's Countercoup” http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB468/ regarding Kermit Roosevelt’s attempt to write about the coup in his autobiography. Examine some of the key word and phrase changes the CIA required in Roosevelt’s book before publication, and how these ‘alterations’ changed the story. In learning how to research a historical event, students are taught to search primary sources (newspaper articles, government documents, letters, autobiographies, etc.) to ensure an unbiased and objective account. After reading this book and learning how the CIA manipulated the US press by inserting their own articles in New York Times, as well as the changing key events and facts in Roosevelt’s autobiography, do you think primary sources should be prioritized as unbiased and accurate. In light of recent politicizing of this issue (Government officials accusing media of ‘fake’ news and media accusing officials of spreading misinformation) How can researchers or anyone interested in history learn the ‘real’ story? How can we, as citizens, hope to learn our nation’s history, or learn from the past? Is there any way around these problems?