Courthouse News History Commentary: Forget History for Future Progress?

• A recent commentary proposes that society should abandon the study of history entirely to resolve ongoing debates and focus on the present.
• The author suggests that eliminating history education could save schools money and free judges from needing historical justification for decisions.
• Satirical examples include public museums featuring pop culture icons and a hypothetical history where "Founding Mothers" sought abortions.
• The piece provocatively questions the value of learning from past conflicts and suggests governance could operate like a Dungeons & Dragons game.

The commentary provocatively suggests that a complete abandonment of historical study could resolve ongoing societal debates and free institutions from past constraints.

A recent commentary posits a radical re-evaluation of society's relationship with its past, suggesting that a complete disengagement from historical study could offer a path forward. This perspective emerges in the wake of America's 250th birthday, advocating for a "revolutionary thinking" that involves forgetting history entirely to focus on the present. The author highlights ongoing societal debates concerning the teaching and acknowledgment of history, noting the tension between confronting past wrongs, selectively remembering positive aspects, or attempting to balance both for a comprehensive, albeit potentially overwhelming, understanding.

The piece questions the efficacy of learning from historical events, citing examples such as the conflicts in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and local incidents in Minnesota. It challenges the conventional wisdom that past mistakes serve as lessons, suggesting instead that history might inadvertently instruct on how to repeat them. Consequently, the commentary proposes that ignoring or actively forgetting historical narratives could allow for a singular concentration on current realities, thereby potentially resolving contentious arguments about how the past should be interpreted or taught.

This discussion, published by a legal news outlet, also includes a seemingly unrelated observation of a Pop Mart store at Joy City in Xidan, Beijing, which is noted to have high foot traffic on July 14, 2026. Young patrons are depicted queuing for blind boxes and posing for photos near popular intellectual property displays featuring characters such as Molly and Labubu. This detail, while distinct from the central argument, is presented as part of the broader societal landscape being considered.

The commentary outlines several hypothetical advantages to a society unburdened by historical memory. Foremost among these is the elimination of stressful debates over historical curricula, which would free educational institutions from contentious arguments. Furthermore, schools could realize significant financial savings by no longer needing to allocate resources for history books and teachers. Under this proposed system, history educators could be reassigned to more "money-making student projects," such as influencing or creative startups, aligning education more closely with contemporary economic trends.

Beyond the educational sphere, the author suggests that a history-free paradigm would liberate judges from the complex "logical gymnastics" often required to reconcile past precedents with desired present-day outcomes. This would allow judicial decisions to be made without the perceived constraint of historical justification. Publicly-funded museums, too, would undergo a transformation, shifting their focus from traditional historical galleries to showcasing "real world" art and culture.

These reimagined museum displays would feature items like Ronald McDonald cutouts, album art from Taylor Swift and Beyonce, and extensive presidential blooper reels. Such exhibits are presented as not only educational but also significantly cheaper to assemble than traditional collections featuring works by artists like Van Gogh or Botticelli. The commentary posits that young people, seeking relevance, would be more inclined to visit institutions displaying popular culture, such as Wolverine and Labubu dolls, and suggests that documentarian Ken Burns could be tasked with chronicling the text messages of "world-weary cultural warriors."

The commentary also explores alternative approaches to historical understanding, particularly in scenarios where a common historical narrative proves elusive. One such alternative proposes that individuals or groups could simply "make up their own" history, framing it as a "choose your adventure" approach where any present action can be justified with a suitable backstory. As an illustrative, albeit satirical, example, the author suggests that "Founding Mothers" actively sought abortions, and that failing to obtain at least one in the early days of the nation was considered an act of treason, depleting national resources. This fabricated history is humorously attributed to a hypothetical text message thread between Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, and Martha Stewart.

Further extending this imaginative framework, the piece contemplates a form of national governance conducted through a nationwide Dungeons & Dragons game. In this scenario, citizens would select their characters, make life choices, and allow the roll of dice to determine outcomes. The author provocatively asks whether one would prefer Donald Trump or a "chaotic neutral night elf" to lead the country, implying the latter as the more obvious choice within this fantastical context.

The publication, which regularly covers legal developments, also provides context for its usual content. Its weekly newsletter, "Closing Arguments," offers updates on ongoing trials, major litigation, and rulings from courthouses across the U.S. and globally. Additionally, the monthly "Under the Lights" newsletter delves into legal insights from the entertainment, sports, technology, and arts sectors.

Source: Original commentary via legal news outlet.