From the original post:
During the first 15 years humans shouldn't be taught any subjects about how other humans have experienced this world. I mean nothing. Zero subjects. Children should only be taught how to think and not what to think.
Would you agree to "children should be taught to question what was thought by those who came before them?"
On a large scale, if children were never taught what other people thought, would the United States exist today? Most countries in history were bound by a religion taught in the home (and church) throughout childhood. Indeed, raising a child is nearly synonymous with teaching what you and your community believe.
The founding of the US with a seperation of church and state as a core tennant was a risk. To provide the glue needed to unify the nation, children were taught what to think. About underrepresentation, freedom of religion, equality, opportunity, and all the other things that drove people to migrate to the US from countries where the primary community bond was religion. I'm sure you have heard, "those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it," and without knowing why the U.S. was founded, what would stop one community bound by their religion from breaking off and building laws that impose the will of their religion?
On a small scale, younger minds are simply more inclined to be selfish and gravitate towards immediate rewards or solutions. Romeo acted against how he was told to think, which is pretty equatable with acting how he wanted as if he had not been told how to think. Fiction, but could you not not picture a similar outcome (at least 5 dead) if a whole generation was raised to beyond the start of puberty without any moral guidance?
I am sure you would agree that even if you know history (the version someone decided to teach anyways) people repeat those mistakes anyways.
so at the end it is pointless. each country teaches its own history by emphasizing on the goods and avoiding the bads. History is mostly fiction.
You can certainly find examples of history repeating itself, but I do not accept that it is the rule instead of the exception particularly in cases where the actors know the history in question. Pennsylvania breaking off into a quaker-run country of its own is not in history because history did not repeat itself. Finding an example where it did repeat itself is easy because what did not happen did not get written up nearly as often -- your pool of samples is biased.
In addition, the quoted statement is to not teach children what to think. I started with history being close to the definition of a school's history class, but the "what" we teach our children might be more along the lines of "historic information" including everything ever written or discovered.
Although the shoulders of giants idea goes back farther than Isaac Newton, he said "If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." If the giants he stood on were mostly fiction, how come he saw farther than those before him and those after him have seen farther than he did?
For instance, I believe Einstein was writing about the influence of magnetic fields by the age of 16 -- but he had been taught what to think about why apples fell instead of floating. Had he not been taught anything of electricity and physics before the age of 15, how could he have been so advanced at the age of 16? Would he have reached the same heights by the end of his live?
If we go 'post-history' -- not teaching our children what to think -- we would not stand any chance of it being appropriately questioned. Children would come to their own conclusions by the age of 15, and those conclusions would be as primitive as any from pre-history.