It depends on what political system we have by then. If we do develop further and progress to a one whole planet mentality (no countries/borders etc) then we will know our history as it was.

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. "

Can you name a political system that didn't selectively rewrite or selectively teach history? I think of it as a spectrum, but very non-ideal whichever direction you look.

I'd love to learn more - got any sources?

The US foreign policy for the Americas in the early 20th century is something that tends to be thoroughly ignored.

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).

Try "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler, USMC major general.

And let's not forget how the US rolled all over latin America during the cold war...

The problem with that book is so much of its unverifiable and unsourced or a gross exaggeration of the actual facts. It is not an accurate representation of history, and seems to just try and shock the reader.

I googled around a bit, and it appears that most of the criticism comes from those on the right who aren’t a fan of the narrative.

Regardless of who the criticism comes from, the point still stands. Also, one of the first results that came up: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg-histor...

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.

I read that, and it isn’t exactly a scathing critique. He appears to recognize at least some value in it.

Do you by chance consider yourself a conservative?

No I am not a conservative. I have read that book, and the first time I read it I liked it a lot. I thought it was the definitive book on US history. However, I have heard from many reputable sources about the problems that the book has, and Howard Zinn himself has an obvious agenda. Regardless of ideology, a book that paints itself as nonfiction history book should be objective and unbiased. The Peoples History of the United States is undeniably biased in my opinion, and for that reason I do not recommend it except for someone's own personal enjoyment.

Isn’t that sort of debate pretty common when it comes to history books? The entire point of the book was to write about history from the point of view of those who “lost.” Of course it’s biased in that respect, and it was on purpose.

Even though I'm inclined to beleive you, that's not really a rebuttal to what the parent comment said.

Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen talks a lot about how whitewashed, and classist history text books are, and why that is the case.

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.)

What are some of these worse black marks?

Colonialism is one of them. History books in US and UK still teach that the colonizers saved the savages and brought them to the modern age. They continue to completely ignore that most colonies underwent centuries long recession as a result of the repression. Japan was never colonized and became quite advanced.

Which books? I've read through a fair number of history books published in the US, and they have tended to have a strong focus on the problems caused by colonization while criticizing the idea of 'saving' the locals.

> History books in US and UK still teach that the colonizers saved the savages and brought them to the modern age.

My history books (1980s public school, New York, US) most definitely taught nothing of the sort.

I don't think that's true. I went to school in the UK in the 80's and my kids are going to school in the US now, and this is far from what I remember then and not what I see now. "Colonial guilt" is how I would sum it up. Not to say there's not a lot of whitewashing and selective reporting, far from it. But it's probably been 50 years since "teach that the colonizers saved the savages"..

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...

No they don't in the UK.

During elections people used to be bribed with alcohol.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/swilling-the-pla...

One of a thousand examples.

Ask a Native American.

Slavery

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

These are certainly bad, but generally well-documented historically. I don't formally study history, but have read about most of these.

The original premise was that black marks will be overlooked. I don’t know how to break it to you, but the ones you’ve listed are infamous and hardly overlooked.

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.

> the ones you've listed are infamous and hardly overlooked

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.

you dont need to break it to me... ask a group outside of HN and they will come up with a couple if you’re lucky.

try it.

No offense to this site, I like it a lot so far, but I wouldn’t favorably compare it in terms of non-technical knowledge to most of the educated population. You listed a ton of really infamous events, ones that are routinely covered in intro classes at all levels of schooling, and have entered even pop culture. If you think that most people are unaware of all, but a couple of them, you’re grossly underestimating people. I’d argue that the only two many people wouldn’t know are the actions of the pope one, and the Chin emperor. The rest are familiar to pretty much everyone who made it through high school.

I wouldn’t argue it’s worse than slavery, but as a singular event Bikini Atoll was horrific.

This is a moving target; I haven't been in school for a while. Here's two:

The complicity of US corporations in the holocaust.

The way the US protected people who committed atrocities to gain a scientific advantage after WW2.