No they won't, it'll be whitewashed in textbooks and only those who study history will know. There's already so many so-called black marks that are worse and already quietly overlooked.
If we continue on the current path then im afraid we'll still be divided with all the consequences (same old same old).
" No they won't, it'll be whitewashed in textbooks and only those who study history will know. There's already so many so-called black marks that are worse and already quietly overlooked. "
A summary of the book is that history textbooks have a tendency to avoid showing anything negative done by great American historical figures because they are held up as heroes for people in imitate. There is a narrative of constant progress that is told in the textbooks that does not match with actual history. History textbooks avoid talking about class struggles altogether, because if they did they would be labeled as Marxist. There is a general avoidance of discussing immoral foreign policy. The book backs up these claims by citing many popular textbooks and how they cover, or don't cover, historical events.
(The following summary of the book is my own understanding of the book's opinions and not necessarily my own. I haven't studied history enough to hold my own opinion.)
Treatment of indigenous peoples around the world is also another big blinders, although the US has done one of the better jobs of being forthright about poor treatment (compared to Canada, say).
I don't know if that guy is a liberal or conservative, but he is a Stanford professor, and that seems like a pretty reputable source. At least more than Howard Zinn.
Do you by chance consider yourself a conservative?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/swilling-the-pla...
One of a thousand examples.
My history books (1980s public school, New York, US) most definitely taught nothing of the sort.
You have a point about the economic impact of the colonialism, and the economic value that was extracted. At least in the case of the UK, that was made it a global power. That is usually not discussed much, because it's history, not economics...
Annihilation of local tribes by colonisers
forced opium enslavement of China
dividing up China between France/Britain/Japan
pestilence from European cattle annihilating 2/3 of inland african people via starvation
the policy of the Holy Roman Emperor and The Pope to keep german states at war with italian states
emperor Chin executing the whole village where any crime at all occurred
The Spanish Inquisition
The Khmer Rouge
The Long March under Mao
Stalins purges and gulags
the list goes on
Premise: No they won't, it'll be whitewashed in textbooks and only those who study history will know. There's already so many so-called black marks that are worse and already quietly overlooked.
And you just offered a ton of support for the competing hypothesis that our period of history will be infamous along with the ones you’ve listed.
try it.
You think? Here's my experience (I went to school in Germany).
> Annihilation of local tribes by colonisers
Saw some TV documentaries on it. Not mentioned in history class.
> forced opium enslavement of China
Heard about it on a history podcast. Not mentioned in any sort of mainstream media or curriculums.
> dividing up China between France/Britain/Japan
Hearing about this for the first time now.
> pestilence from European cattle annihilating 2/3 of inland african people via starvation
Hearing about this for the first time now.
> the policy of the Holy Roman Emperor and The Pope to keep german states at war with italian states
This rings a bell, but only very distantly. So maybe I've heard about that somewhere, but no idea where.
> emperor Chin executing the whole village where any crime at all occurred
Who's emperor Chin?
> The Spanish Inquisition
Saw some TV documentaries on it. Not mentioned in history class.
> [the last three bulletpoints about communist dictatorships]
The gulags were mentioned in history class. Nothing about Mao or the Khmer Rouge. I saw some documentaries about Mao on TV, though.
In general, history education in school was infuriatingly superficial wrt the 20th century. The curriculum was basically chronological, starting with the antique Egyptian empire in 5th grade and ending with contemporary history in the 10th grade. (Then in 11th through 13th grade, the same structure, but condensed into three years.)
The obvious issue with this structure is that you always run out of time at the end of the curriculum, so you have to rush through the most recent parts of history, which IMO ought to be given the strongest emphasis of all periods.
The complicity of US corporations in the holocaust.
The way the US protected people who committed atrocities to gain a scientific advantage after WW2.