The purpose of history is to explain how things got to be the way they are today. It is not to create a laundry list of "marginalized groups" grievances, which is pretty much how it is being taught now.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you're making, but I don't see how the grievances of marginalized groups are separable from an explanation of "how things got to be the way they are today." Rather, they are absolutely critical to that explanation.
See, this is the reaction to any kind of critique of how history is currently taught. No one is suggesting that there should be zero pages dedicated in history books to slavery or mistreatment of Native Americans. It's just that plenty of other things happened in the 18th/19th centuries that are also extremely important that young people today seem to have no knowledge of probably because they've been excised from history classes in favor of constant white guilt tripping.
And the question was if history should be taught from the "perspective of marginalized groups". I was being a bit diplomatic in my first response but to be clear I'll just throw political correctness to the wind and say "no". The important things to learn about slavery are the economic and political forces that led to its establishment and abolition, and how the handling of the abolition of slavery continues to impact our politics and society today. Anecdotes about slaves being abducted or whipped are certainly extremely sad but aren't of much particular value in an overall survey of American history. You could go into stuff like that in a university class specifically on slavery and in museums, but in a general American history class that is just supposed to give you the basics the impact slaver had as an overall institution is the more important subject since you have to cover 250 years of history in a limited time.
Poll
