American kids rarely learn about most of the dozens of conflicts that have taken place since WWII, including the ones the US was involved in. Unless this gets a lot bigger, it's not gonna be taught in the US, except university-level courses. Everything post-Vietnam is a blur, if it's covered at all.

Of course, kids alive now who pay attention to the news will see it. And future kids who are history or politics nerds might learn of it on their own.

Really? Fall of the Soviet Union, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan wars are only a blur if covered at all? I don't think so.

From what I recall in American history class there's very little on post ww2 conflict. But I graduated high school in 2000.

I think there's little on modern conflict because recent conflict is more likely to be considered political and therefore controversial. It's true that there are parts of the nation where a textbook's take on the civil war might be controversial- but I think, where I grew up at least, you could teach up to WW2 without offending a parent's political sensibility.

I can't speak for American schools, but in Germany we were taught little of what happened after 1945, so I wouldn't be surprised if the situation in the US would be similar. It's a shame, I would have loved to learn more about why the world is the way it is today.

> in Germany we were taught little of what happened after 1945

I'd have to guess that has something to do with.. how things went for Germany in 1945? In my US public education we had a series of courses that covered "recent" history as in the last 20 years or so and another about current events.

> American kids rarely learn about most of the dozens of conflicts that have taken place since WWII, including the ones the US was involved in.

Added some emphasis.

Granted I graduated about 18 years ago, but my experience, and one shared by everyone I've talked to about it, including those who went to school in other states, was that our time in k-12 history classes were spent about like this (numbers ballparked but basically correct):

20% Early civilizations (largely "cradle of civilization" focuses, rarely going past the Greeks and not covering any of that remotely thoroughly).

25% The "Age of Exploration" in Europe and early American (as in, the continents) colonial history.

40% US history from about 1760-1900

15% Everything else. Probably half of our education of post-WWII material concerned the Civil Rights Movement, but it was very poorly contextualized and more of a "greatest hits" approach (as with most of the rest, really). World history post-WWII was hardly covered at all.

At the pace those classes move, there's hardly time to cover anything but the basics, and that only by leaving out huge swaths of time.

I only went into college with any significant grasp on history thanks to personal interest. It'd be entirely possible to have passed every grade k-12 with a perfect 4.0 and have huge blanks in one's historical knowledge. Most of the rest was presented with so little analysis and context that it was pretty useless (again, at the snail's pace those classes move, and with limited ability to push work on kids outside of class [especially, these days, for anything that's not math or reading] there's simply no way to cover very much in the first place, and none of it well)

A bunch of factors contribute to this, including:

1) You can only really push history so fast on kids under a certain age (go low enough and reading ability becomes a factor, plus they start with no context for any of this, and bootstrapping up to the point they can really appreciate what's going on takes a bunch of time). Most kids attend at least 13 total years of school by the time they graduate from high school, but they're only really receptive to a good history education for, at most, half that time—before that you're just trying to get them the building blocks to be able to understand stuff later, and often that doesn't even happen. This differential-ability-at-different-ages thing is why a curriculum will often repeat coverage of history material in multiple years.

2) We used to focus more narrowly on European history & heritage (and, broadly, the "Western" heritage of Rome and, by way of Rome, Greece), and put that stuff directly into things like the reading curriculum. It's no longer acceptable to have such a narrow focus and literature reading plans have shifted far away from that, leaving history classes to largely stand alone while the scope of what they're supposed to try to cover has only grown. On top of that, history classes are often less well-resourced than others (math and English classes, especially), notorious (especially at the high school level, where more serious history could be taught) as a haven for teachers who are mostly in the career to coach sports, likely to receive pushback from parents and admin if homework or reading load creeps above the bare minimum (that time is needed for math and English—if every subject gave out homework like those do, kids wouldn't have time to sleep), and constantly at risk of angering parents with facts (let alone even the tamest and most uncontroversial of analysis). Everything's set up for it to be neglected, and it is.

I don't see how this is obvious. They will learn about historic events in history class. Telling a 9 year old, right now, has no purpose, other than raising the cortisol levels in the already stressed child's mind. Children don't need to be exposed to adult matters, before they can understand them. Many psychological problems that come from poverty are from children being dumped into the deep end too early, before their brains are, literally, physically mature enough.