its so fascinating how the us seems to teach history in an individualist way, focusing on learning who specific people (Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Amelia Earhart, Rosa Parks, Hellen Keller, MLK, JFK etc) are instead of prioritising actual events and circumstances. Like here in Australia, you probably would only know who the first prime minster is if you were a history/politics nerd where as i think it would be extremely hard to find someone in the USA who doesn't know who washington was. the only equivalent i can think of in Australia is james cook and matthew flinders which has it's own problems imo. i think it even extends to advertising like i only know who colonel sanders is through american popular culture, even though its not like kfc is not a popular fast food brand, the ads had such a big impact on me that they made me really hate the song I Don't Care (I Love It!) because they were always used in them despite it being an excellent song. because notably they've never focused on the mascot despite him being popular in america. but ultimately one of the many problems with this individualist perspective is that even the individuals themselves have been misconstrued through popular culture. For example Marsha P Johnson is often attributed to throwing the first brick at Stonewall despite not being present, because its easier to credit her with everything then (correctly) saying that it was a collective response to unjust circumstances, and her actual achievements (like helping start STAR) are often forgotten or marginalised.
