Honestly, a lot of Americans don't even seem to be aware of massacres committed by former enemies like North Vietnam after they won the Vietnam War. It's not a surprise they're not aware of what a distant ally did outside of the Korean War
At least growing up in NYC, domestic history is really focused on domestic affairs. We barely touched the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War was kind of a footnote. The World Wars are discussed in that they set up the US as a superpower but the actual implications of that are more or less glossed over (nothing about South American activities, barely anything about the Korean War; I think we talked for one hour in high school about Mossadegh and that was “world history.”) And that’s probably one of the more progressive curriculums in the country; in the past there has been uproar over textbooks in other states saying that slavery was a consensual migration for economic reasons.
Are you suggesting this is taught as an alternative lens on the American Civil War? I've never heard this name, and went to public school in the South.
See also: "USA bringing democracy to countries that don't have it" VS "USA invading countries to steer their internal/international policies"
So it seems like that particular term has fallen out of favor (coming into prominence and usage during the last breaths of segregation) but there are still alternate names like "War Between the States". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_American_Civil_Wa...