For you History Buffs

[wbonnell]

The most thought provoking history I've ever read:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060528370/002-2074891-3733615?v=glance

Certainly, Zinn has his own "agenda", or bias, but he clearly states that in the beginning of the book. I think the "people's perspective" deserves more empathy.

I find Zinn's following assertion particularly poignant:

“the history of any country conceals fierce conflicts of interest between conquerors and conquered […] and in such a world of conflict, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners”.

Most people I meet seem to possess an irrationally nationalistic attitude. I for one think that our government is every bit as cold and heartless as any government known to man, neither better nor worse. Moreover, I don't subscribe to a telelogical view of history, for I believe we have remained essentially the same for thousands of years.

[Fritz]

the guy would not agree

"After reading this book it is hard to know just where to begin. Many of the other reviewers have called it "balanced", "the other side of the coin", and a "non-revisionist" look at our history. Actually, it is none of these. It is the work of an anti-capitalist who so obsessed with the utopian-like (albeit failed) ideals of Marxism and radical socialism that he readily disregards all evidence to the contrary to promote the belief that America is the sole source of the world's evils. His views are the epitome and throwback to the "peace-at-any-cost" crowd of 1930's England. He praises all things anti-American and boldly champions their various causes. However, most of his conclusions are based on presuppositions that cannot be substantiated with empirical evidence or credible testimony. Where he does site witness testimony, i.e., in the Waco siege or the Attica riot, he quotes ONLY the Davidians or the prisoners and not the other side. He summarily dismisses conventional history and promotes his view of it, without providing a firm backing for his beliefs, other than his opinion. In other words, at the meat of this book, Zinn is the authority sited most to substantiate a radically new "history." In the end, it is not history it is HIS story. However, at its core, it is an interesting read, but only in as much as it gives the reader insight into the mind of a depressed, paranoid, Marxist writer who rallies against revisionist history while proudly championing his own revision of the same."

[Fritz]

or this one

"Howard Zinn is an American Marxist who embraces all things anti-American. His book is replete with anti- establishment, anti- corporation, anti- white male, anti- patriotic bias. And lest the reader have any question as to his agenda, read the final two chapters in which he openly advocates the overthrow of our current way of life, the forced redistribution of wealth, and in it's place, a new utopian existence based on failed social experiements of the past.

This book does not represent a balanced view of American History. It's an entirely negative, depressing view of our nation as seen from a depressed Marxist who looks for the overthrow of our country. "

[wbonnell]

Funny, I didn't get that at all. He does offer one perspective, a perspective diametrically opposed to the nationalistic one served up by our public school system.

Nevertheless, what does it matter if what he says is negative. Zinn is a well-respected historian and the events he discusses did happen. Columbus, for instance, was a slave trader.

So, is that all the reading you need to do? Some Amazon.com lackey distilled it for you in a few sentences and you're done?

[Fritz]

You offered one side. These people offer another.

Funny though, when I googled for the author and critical review all I could find were right wing sites bashing him, and hard core left wing sites praising him.

Frankly, that is not the stuff good history is made of.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Fritz
You offered one side. These people offer another.

Funny though, when I googled for the author and critical review all I could find were right wing sites bashing him, and hard core left wing sites praising him.

Frankly, that is not the stuff good history is made of.

You're right- the books is, shall we say, controversial. And it was extremely negative. There's no doubt about that. But that's what makes it so thought provoking. Even though I don't necessarily agree with his political persuasion, his historical accounts are known to be accurate. We can sweep the negative stuff under the rug if we wish, but a little introspection is useful.

[Fritz]

There is a modern trend that wants to tear apart man, that looks to demolish his achievements and heap his failings upon the rubble, and it does it in the name of honesty and truth. Well I think it is some sort of inner loathing and want no part of it. When you dig all this shit out of our history and heap it up you have nothing to say but "look at that pile of shit we have created."

No thank you. I will stick with somewhat tarnished heroes, monuments, and achievements. And if I step in a little shit while I look at them, that's okay, but I wont stop to play with it.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Fritz
There is a modern trend that wants to tear apart man, that looks to demolish his achievements and heap his failings upon the rubble, and it does it in the name of honesty and truth. Well I think it is some sort of inner loathing and want no part of it. When you dig all this shit out of our history and heap it up you have nothing to say but "look at that pile of shit we have created."


Is that what it is? Or is it simply the realization that mankind has the capacity to commit evil. I think we should seek the Truth hidden in the past and learn from it <b>even if we find it Truth depressing.</b>


No thank you. I will stick with somewhat tarnished heroes, monuments, and achievements. And if I step in a little shit while I look at them, that's okay, but I wont stop to play with it.

Is that an intellectually honest approach? Should we honor Christopher Columbus even if evidence shows that he was a dishonorable man? Should we not expose the immorality in our society so that we can better ourselves? Or should we be satisfied with public school history?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by wbonnell

Is that an intellectually honest approach? Should we honor Christopher Columbus even if evidence shows that he was a dishonorable man? Should we not expose the immorality in our society so that we can better ourselves? Or should we be satisfied with public school history?

All his warts aside, Columbus ushered in a new era of Western Civilization. Yeah, it came at the expense of a few slowpoke indigenous cultures. Boo hoo. You're enjoying the fruits now, buddy.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
I think that the problem is that HISTORY BUFFS prefer objectivity while POLITICAL BUFFS prefer the subjectivity this man appears to have.

Perhaps your definition of history buff is someone simply interested in historical <b>facts</b>? In my opinion, there is only superficial knowledge in facts, no true understanding. The study of history is important for the ideas one can derive from it. And, no, those ideas need not be dogmatic. Zinn may indeed be guilty of his own dogma (you are obligated to reserve judgement until you read the book), but at least he's offering a view of American history that has been suppressed for far too long.

How can one, in principle, not agree with approaching history from the people's perspective? When we discuss Christopher Columbus, teach me about the Indians he enslaved. When we discuss the Declaration of Independence, tell me about the slaves and their freedom. When we discuss the Revolutionary War, tell me how it impacted the freedom and land rights of the average American.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
All his warts aside, Columbus ushered in a new era of Western Civilization. Yeah, it came at the expense of a few slowpoke indigenous cultures. Boo hoo. You're enjoying the fruits now, buddy.

Yes, that's the common sentiment. The farther one is removed from a time or a society, the less one cares about it.

[MissionComplete]

This is my main text book for my intro to American History class. I highly recommend the book, it's a great read.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by MissionComplete
This is my main text book for my intro to American History class. I highly recommend the book, it's a great read.

Wow. That is indeed amazing. However, I am concerned that it is the primary text. I recommend it as a supplement, something of a contrast...

[Fritz]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Is that what it is? Or is it simply the realization that mankind has the capacity to commit evil. I think we should seek the Truth hidden in the past and learn from it even if we find it Truth depressing.


That is exactly what it is. Man has known for a while about his capacity to commit evil. There is nothing new here.

And come off the TRUTH bit a little. I know you are on some quest for truth, but you are puffing your head up with a mishmash of stuff, none of which is THE truth.

Here is what I know, and it is absolute: The truth is much bigger than your ability to understand it. Simply put, you can't fit it all into your very finite brain. The best you can do is get a slice of the truth, and even lies are a slice of the truth (and slices of the truth are all lies if you want to wrap the brainbox around something). So your journey is not to find THE TRUTH, it is find a bit of it you can grab hold of and feel comfortable with. That is what every seeker is grasping for.

I will come down off my "enlightened" horse a little now. Just realize you had truth with bits and bytes and on your journey I would advise you keep a tether to them so you can find your way back.

[Fritz]

dola

if you do find the truth, don't fuck with it - you may put your eye out.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
I think that the problem is that HISTORY BUFFS prefer objectivity while POLITICAL BUFFS prefer the subjectivity this man appears to have.

Fritz,

Are you going to sit there and let him accuse you of rampant schizophrenia?

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by MissionComplete
This is my main text book for my intro to American History class. I highly recommend the book, it's a great read.

High school?

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by wbonnell
How can one, in principle, not agree with approaching history from the people's perspective? When we discuss Christopher Columbus, teach me about the Indians he enslaved. When we discuss the Declaration of Independence, tell me about the slaves and their freedom. When we discuss the Revolutionary War, tell me how it impacted the freedom and land rights of the average American.


I learned all of these facts in public school. What's new here? Am I supposed to feel ashamed about it now?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Drake
Fritz,

Are you going to sit there and let him accuse you of rampant schizophrenia?

when I first opened the thread, I planned to say something about it, but got sidetracked by the good seeker.

[CamEdwards]

BTW Fritz, home runs left and right in this thread.

It's funny how the same people who want to trash historical figures for their various sins would today consider themselves secular humanists and moral revisionists with no firm definintion of right or wrong.

If you want a good paperback history read, pick up Kenneth Davis's "Don't Know Much About History" or "One Night Stands in American History" (can't remember the author), or even Michael Farquar's "Great American Scandals". They're all a more balanced look at the various facets of American History (even its seedy underside).

[Drake]

Originally posted by Fritz
when I first opened the thread, I planned to say something about it, but got sidetracked by the good seeker.

I read as far as I did waiting for it. I figured somebody had to get it out of the way.

For the record: I agree with Fritz and everybody else who agreed with Fritz. Anyone who disagrees with Fritz is a complete tool and a brainwashed agent of the Man's Systems of Social Control.

[samifan24]

I had to read a good portion of Zinn's book for my college American Civ II class. I disliked it with a passion. On top of it all, we did not balance Zinn's book with an opposing view of history, which irked me even more. I'm ok with reading something I dislike as long as it is balanced and I don't just say that because I disliked Zinn's book. If my class read a conservative view of American history, I'd expect it to be countered as well. While I disliked Zinn's book, what bothered me more about the course was the lack of balance presented in the syllabus. Just my personal feelings though so I'm sure some of you will disagree with me.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Fritz
That is exactly what it is. Man has known for a while about his capacity to commit evil. There is nothing new here.

And come off the TRUTH bit a little. I know you are on some quest for truth, but you are puffing your head up with a mishmash of stuff, none of which is THE truth.

Here is what I know, and it is absolute: The truth is much bigger than your ability to understand it. Simply put, you can't fit it all into your very finite brain. The best you can do is get a slice of the truth, and even lies are a slice of the truth (and slices of the truth are all lies if you want to wrap the brainbox around something). So your journey is not to find THE TRUTH, it is find a bit of it you can grab hold of and feel comfortable with. That is what every seeker is grasping for.

I will come down off my "enlightened" horse a little now. Just realize you had truth with bits and bytes and on your journey I would advise you keep a tether to them so you can find your way back.

I agree. We can't possible know if the ultimate truth is attainable but that shouldn't stop us from pursuing it. As for me, I'm not looking for comfort in the truth. As a matter of fact, I find the truth disconcerting. For instance, I can never know why I exist, nor can I know what happens to me when I die. That makes me feel rather uncomfortable. Indeed, I would venture to say that if one "finds' comfort, one has stopped seeking the truth.


p.s. I don't quite "get" your assertion about truth and falsity.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
BTW Fritz, home runs left and right in this thread.


Obviously you and Fritz think alike


It's funny how the same people who want to trash historical figures for their various sins would today consider themselves secular humanists and moral revisionists with no firm definintion of right or wrong.


You might be right. Still, historians have an obligation to expose both the strengths and weaknesses of a person or society. Moreover, they must try to be as impartial as possible. The U.S. has done some terrible things, and it has done some wonderful things. In this way, it is no different than any other society of people. No better, no worse.


If you want a good paperback history read, pick up Kenneth Davis's "Don't Know Much About History" or "One Night Stands in American History" (can't remember the author), or even Michael Farquar's "Great American Scandals". They're all a more balanced look at the various facets of American History (even its seedy underside).

Which should I read first?

[Ksyrup]

The other morning, on my drive into work, the local host's show was not on for some reason, and they were replaying an Art Bell show (maybe from that night/morning, I don't know). He had some guy on who said that we're just an experiment in a petri dish, and that no one can know why we are here, or else the whole world would fall into chaos. And then Bell started talking about another uy who theorized that we were created to mine for gold.

Now I know why Art Bell gets the 2am-6am slot.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
The other morning, on my drive into work, the local host's show was not on for some reason, and they were replaying an Art Bell show (maybe from that night/morning, I don't know). He had some guy on who said that we're just an experiment in a petri dish, and that no one can know why we are here, or else the whole world would fall into chaos. And then Bell started talking about another uy who theorized that we were created to mine for gold.

Now I know why Art Bell gets the 2am-6am slot.

So how does he know we're an experiment in a petri dish? :)

People that live in the philosophical clouds so to speak are "wankers". At some point, you have to be practical and accept much of what you can't rationally prove (like other minds for instance).

[MissionComplete]

I use main text book losely, as I have 6 other books I have to read, and it generally isn't taught from, but covers the lectures she gives us in a general form. Sorry for the confusion.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Obviously you and Fritz think alike



You might be right. Still, historians have an obligation to expose both the strengths and weaknesses of a person or society. Moreover, they must try to be as impartial as possible. The U.S. has done some terrible things, and it has done some wonderful things. In this way, it is no different than any other society of people. No better, no worse.



Which should I read first?

Actually, after reading your statement that the United States is no better or worse than other countries, I would suggest reading Dinesh D'Souza's "What's So Great About America" first. Ken Davis's book is fairly pedestrian, the "One Night Stands In American History" is a collection of nuggests without much narrative, and Farquar's book is comprised of three and four page narratives on various American figures. I think they're all good, but in different ways.

Seriously though, read D'Souza's book. It's a very common sense approach to why the United States is the best country in the world.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
Well, I consider myself a history buff and clicked on this thread with interest. I am a history buff in that I like to read books about history (written with a neutral political agenda)/watch PBS about history (which, left-leaning at times, is usually excellent) and, from those facts that I've learned, draw my own conclusions about what happened. Most people, when they read dogmatic literature (Rush, Bill O'Reilly/Franken, Michael Moore), read it to justify their pre-existing beliefs. This is not history, but politics then. Zimm appears to be no different in my mind (and no, I feel no obligation to do anything).

Sorry, it was a bit of a bait-and-switch. :)

First of all, I don't think Zinn's political motivations are any more extreme than any intelligent, aware person. He holds controversial, unpopular views, to be sure, but that doesn't make them political. Indeed, Zinn is one of the most esteemed historians in academia. He's spent his life studying mankind, not politics. I for one am glad he is willing to expose the iniquities perpetrated by some of our national "heroes".

Even if that implies Zinn leans too far to the left (whatever that means), I don't think that makes his work any less valuable. For instance, if you wished to fully understand the Cold War, would you limit your information gathering to PBS and the Modern American Military, uh I mean, The History Channel? Wouldn't you want to read Russian accounts of the era? Probably wouldn't hurt to read French and Chinese accounts as well. You see, there IS more than one reality. Indeed, I would say that we each define our own reality (greatly influenced by our society, of course). It seems to me that true wisdom comes from understanding your biases and trying to overcome them. Identifying oneself as human being first rather than an American is the first step.

[wbonnell]

dola:
Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
Most people, when they read dogmatic literature (Rush, Bill O'Reilly/Franken, Michael Moore), read it to justify their pre-existing beliefs. This is not history, but politics then. Zimm appears to be no different in my mind (and no, I feel no obligation to do anything).

I agree that politics have no part in the study of history (unless, perhaps, one studies the history of politics). If you truly call yourself a history buff, I implore you to read Zinn's book. If nothing else, it will open your mind a little bit wider to better accomodate other perspectives. You might even find yourself developing a healthy, though hopefully mild, mistrust of authority. Until then, please don't label the book as dogmatic. Zinn is an eminent historian because he is a scholar not a politician.

That said, Zinn does focus largely on the negative aspects of our history. I would never recommend one solely read this book.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by wbonnell
So how does he know we're an experiment in a petri dish? :)

People that live in the philosophical clouds so to speak are "wankers". At some point, you have to be practical and accept much of what you can't rationally prove (like other minds for instance).

you can rationally prove the possiblity don't exist... if by minds you mean conscious experience.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
you can rationally prove the possiblity don't exist... if by minds you mean conscious experience.

Sure one can, and then what? One treats people like lifeless machines? What I'm trying to say is that almost nothing, with the notable exception of your very own existence, can be proven. Even your senses are in question(see Descartes and later, The Matrix :) ). But to live life that way is utterly pointless. At some point, you have to accept things on ..... *faith*. There, I said it....

[yabanci]

For those who aren't familiar with him, this is a passage from H, Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" where he explains his perspective in writing the book:

"My viewpoint, in telling the history of the United States, is different [referring to H. Kissinger's statement that "history is the memory of states"]: that we must not accept the memory of states as our own. Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners.

Thus, in that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story from the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil war as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican war as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott's army, f the rise of industrialism as seen by the young woman in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish-American war as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America. And so on, to the limited extend that any one person, however he or she strains, can 'see' history from the standpoint of others.

My point is not to grieve for the victims and denounce the executioners. Those tears, that anger, cast into the past, deplete our moral energy for the present. And the lines are not always clear. In the long run, the oppressor is also a victim. In the short run (and so far, human history has consisted of short runs), the victims, themselves desperate and tainted with the culture that oppresses them, turn on other victims.

Still, understanding the complexities, this book will be skeptical of governments and their attempts, through politics and culture, to ensnare ordinary people in a giant web of nationhood pretending to be common interest. I will try not to overlook the cruelties that victims inflict on one another as they are jammed together in the boxcars of the system. I don't want to romanticize them. But I do remember (in rough paraphrase) a statement I once read: "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is."

I don't want to invent victories for people's movements. But to think that history-writing must aim simply to recapitulate the failures that dominate the past is to make historians collaborators in an endless cycle of defeat. If history is to be creative, to anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it should, I believe, emphasize the new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win. I am supposing, or perhaps only hoping, that our future may be found in the past's fugitive moments of compassion rather than in its solid centuries of warfare" (pp. 10-11)

~~~~~~~~~~~

Whatever you think of his perspective, this is a serious academic text, not Bill O'Rielly or Michael Moore type of book.

[wbonnell]

How is that perspective- in pricinple- not objective?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Sure one can, and then what? One treats people like lifeless machines? What I'm trying to say is that almost nothing, with the notable exception of your very own existence, can be proven. Even your senses are in question(see Descartes and later, The Matrix :) ). But to live life that way is utterly pointless. At some point, you have to accept things on ..... *faith*. There, I said it....

I don't think the inexistence of some higher reason necessarilly leads to empty existence. The same could be said thousands of years ago when people moved from many gods to one god.

It could actually have the opposite affect. As it is now, religion plays entirely too large a role in influenceing wars and similar things. Imagine a world where human life is treated as precious not because someone believes the same as you, but because they are the same as you.

And your senses can be proven wrong in purely physical ways, that doesn't necesarilly mean there is a mind separate from yourself that inhibits them.

Perhaps another time we can debate this fully, but I'll let this remain a history thread.

[cody8200]

Book after book are produced on subjects that authors knowingly create controversy looking to sell more books. Look at it this way. Zinn writes a book about all the bad things America has done and all of our heroes and leaders are one big sham. So what? Go back through history and tell me what world leader didn't have skeletons in their closets? As far as Colombus being a slave trader...many people were at that time...not much different than the average rich person. Why write a book about how America's revolution and colombus when there is so much more evil to talk about from truly evil people. Where's all the books on Stalin who said the very famous quote, "Kill one man it's a tragedy, kill a million and he's just a statistic." How about Mao Zedong or in recent memory Miroslav Milosevich? These people are known as entirely evil men but to what degree are they known? Not to the degree as Colombus so instead of writing a book talking of the horrendous atrocities against millions the author decides to discuss history that just rehashes old news.

[cody8200]

Easy Mac:
Imagine a world where human life is treated as precious not because someone believes the same as you, but because they are the same as you.


Imagine all the people...living for today......

Quite a parallel between Lennon and yourself :)

[Wolfpack]

I dislike the tone of Zinn's book. I've not actually read it cover to cover, but I've seen enough by his own words (citing the quote that was posted above) to know that his worldview and mine would clash and frankly I could do without the stress of reading his literature in full.

However, if you want a US History from a completely opposite perspective, there is Paul Johnson's "History of the American People". Generally, he's got some interesting ideas about history, not all of which I would consider correct (not to mention the occasional factual error, though mixing up Albert Sydney Johnston and Joseph E. Johnston in his Civil War description is hardly something to discredit the entire book on), but if you've just come off of reading Zinn, this will be a whiplash change from that volume.

Me personally, I crave history. My problem is I cannot look at history volumes anymore and not feel that somewhere hidden within the text is the author's personal agenda, left or right (which is something I find unsettling about Johnson's book...that it's too much in the other direction from Zinn at times).

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Wolfpack

Me personally, I crave history. My problem is I cannot look at history volumes anymore and not feel that somewhere hidden within the text is the author's personal agenda, left or right (which is something I find unsettling about Johnson's book...that it's too much in the other direction from Zinn at times).

I suppose that's why it's so important for the serious historian to analyze original documents.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by wbonnell
I suppose that's why it's so important for the serious historian to analyze original documents.

ding ding ding

[sabotai]

Since finding original documents can be difficult/costly, I generally try to find as much on a subject from as many different viewpoints/agendas as I can. That way, it becomes easy to see if someone is not saying something or over stating something.

The bibliography is your friend. Use it!

[Wolfpack]

wbonnell: I would love to do such a thing. Heck, I'd rather have the unabridged Lewis and Clark journals (available as about a dozen fairly large paperbacks), for example, rather than some edited version condensed into one volume. This sort of abridgement is also why I haven't committed to things like Library of America volumes, because all they are are selected excerpts and examples from various writers and historical figures, leaving me to wonder whether certain writings were chosen over others for whatever reason and losing some of the context. I guess I just have a distrust of present-day historians and editors.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by MissionComplete
This is my main text book for my intro to American History class. I highly recommend the book, it's a great read.

Very little on this board bothers me but this is truly one of the worse and most upsetting statement I have ever read here.

[wbonnell]

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html

[TroyF]

There are a lot of things that bother me in this thread. Never saw it until now and I wish I hadn't.

Americas failures? Wbonnell, did you really NOT learn about Americas failures in school? I learned about a ton of them. From Vietnam to slave camps for Asians in WWII to the hiring of Nazi scientists after the war to the trail of tears to the evil slavemasters who signed the Declaration.

When I read history, I want someone who understands the thinking of the people in that time period. As someone else has said here, slavery was an ingrained part of society for thousands of years. It wasn't just blacks and Indians that suffered the fate either. Who is to say what we all think is right at the current moment won't be looked down upon in 200 years as being immoral and barbaric?

Our early leaders weren't saints, our recent leaders aren't and our future leaders won't be. We'll make more mistakes. We'll have more successes. We'll likely suffer the fate of every other civilization known to man and fall apart or become unrecognizable just like all of the others.

As for that book being the MAIN book of any history class, I'm horrified.