Should Introductory History courses start at 50 years ago?

[Democrats_win]

For today's children the most recent 50 years have been quite consequential to their future so why not start there?

The rise of Neoliberalism, the foolish wars in the Middle east, the hate-government movement, America's wars in Latin America and of course racist Ronald Reagan, would have a terrible effect on the world we are now living in. These events made college costs a terrible millstone around the necks of our children and they put our government in the hands of corporations while driving fears of terrorism--caused by our wars--and hatred of immigrants.

When I took my first history course in 1978 as an eighth grader, there had been some big events in the pervious 50 years. Of course the dropping of the first atomic bomb was consequential to anyone's future. The civil rights movement was a very positive big deal, as was, sadly, the white response. Yet I don't feel that those years before 1978 were nearly as consequential as the massive mistakes that America would make in the next 38 years. The foolishness of the past 38 years and the continuing foolishness of the so-called Conservatives, makes recent history so very consequential. (National suicide, especially suicide by the middle class in the name of racism is a BFD.)

Following lessons on the 50-year recent history that totally screwed up our country, history classes can go back to whatever beginning they usually use. Then the students can learn about the ancient idea that, "we are the government." How quaint.