out of curiosity -

[cab67]

Has anyone looked at recent American history textbooks? The ones used for high school and undergraduate classes?

I'm really curious how they treat anything that happened after 2016.

[flor-de-jasmim]

1. I'd be curious to wonder if they even get that far!

I finished high school in 1971, and I know we made it to the Korean War, but don't have a clear memory of us getting much further than that (and I went to a very good school). I seem to recall special short-term courses on "current events", but very topical and no continuity betwen them.

Hope that situation has improved.

[cab67]

2. I took high school American history in 1984 and 1985.

We barely got to the Vietnam War. Definitely didn't get to Watergate.

But the textbook made it at least through 1980.

[Genki Hikari]

3. I took an undegrad general survey history class not long before 2016

The professor couldn't barely get into the 60s. Too damned much has happened since 1865, relative to 1492-1865, for professors to cover modern history well in a survey course.

It's getting to the point that the publishers need to recalibrate US History books. Used to, they divided the content at the Civil War. Well, time marches on.

It's time for the publishers to change the eras that the textbooks cover. I don't know how they can break it down so that the modern era can get taught properly. That's not my problem, though. They need to change the textbooks, so students can get a better understanding of more recent history, which has a greater bearing on their lives today than most history courses can convey with the current breakdown.

[cab67]

4. I've always thought the curriculum should be revised.

It's usually a two-year cycle divided by the Civil War.

I now think the second year should begin with reconstruction and end with WW2.

The third year should begin with the Cold War and bring it to the present.