People today cannot truly grasp history and fully comprehend (possibly literally) what should be learned from it because it is for many of them, especially the new ones in school, just words on a page.
Nothing educates like experience, like how you can teach a skill from a book but to truly understand it you must practice it, probably poorly at first but better with further action.
History cannot truly be experienced by someone who was not there, whether kept apart by time or distance. We can try to bridge the gap with our spoken and written words, and today maybe a video feed, but it is not the same. Just doesn’t adhere to our fleshy brains the same way.
This also means that “true” historical fact and utter fiction are often indistinguishable. The only difference between a history book and a historical fiction is that we are encouraged by our parents who we trust implicitly, or our teachers they tell us to trust, to believe that one book be the true one over another.
Kids today cannot understand the gravity and lessons of the time before because what they have experienced first hand in their short lives is the only thing they truly know to be real. As for everything else, it would be just as easy to give them an alt-history fiction and convince them we saved our country from actual lizard men. And they would believe it with just as much vigor as any other history lesson.
This is why I think some major issues are easily glossed over by the newest generations. Their entire life experience is based in a world which is not perfect, but also not as bad or the same as the events before. And the accounts of the past just don’t hold the same gravity as their experience of world today, making those who did experience worse and are rightly afraid seem like they are exaggerating. We ask people to feel just as concerned about something they have never lived through and hopefully never will, with the same feeling as those who truly have. And it would be like asking someone to feel like they've lived through a novel or movie, because to their brain there is no difference. I feel that's why there is a struggle to connect and cooperate on these issues.
It doesn't help that history is malleable because of its apparent intangibility. There is the fear these days that misinformation, propaganda, and AI created fiction can be easily spread along today's internet, to influence the minds of people everywhere and convince them of non-truths. Politicians and leaders of nations are even at this moment pushing legislation to set the tone of history taught in schools. Should any of this succeed, one generation will know history to have one set of facts, and the next will have another set. They will both hold these facts to be as irrefutably true as any others they've learned. I feel that this is so easily possible because of how, fundamentally, the "true" and false histories are cut from the same cloth and leave the same mark on the mind.
Notice how I keep putting "true" history in quotes? It's because I ask, what is true history? Is it not said that history belongs to the victor? Propaganda, book burnings, internet/information restrictions, statues and landmarks put up and torn down... History is subjective, altered every day to suite a narrative or changing sensibilities. Different countries educate on different perspectives and opinions of the same events, and each is the world truth according to their citizens. This practice continues even into today, with wars going on and different sides with different opinions on why they are happening...and when one is victorious, one side will influence the collective record through alliances old and new, and make that the truth. Eventually. And if that side so happens to be known by the witnesses of the time to be false, then what will become future historical truth, will actually just be fiction.
Or really, all just words on the page, like all history not personally witnessed.
You might be interested in doing some reading on the subject of epistemology. I think it's a mistake to suppose that the hard basis of knowledge is experience alone, especially given that so much of our knowledge is formed through abstraction, and there's many questions of what it may even mean to directly experience anything to begin with.
Reflect on any historical moment you may have lived through to this point. The entire ability to recognize it as an historical moment itself suggests conceptual models of the events of being that are not in themselves necessarily representative of a true, factual basis unless one may somehow be privy to a wider range of information and knowledge than any individual typically has. One's experience of that historical moment then will be no more representative of a true history than any so-called victors nor any other everyday people.
Only after reflection and careful investigation of the moment and the contexts surrounding it may people come closer to something resembling a true historical account (and historians could speak better to what more be may involved in striving after this than I'm indicating here). It is much the same, imo, for any efforts to develop knowledge. Anything less may be some interesting stories that may hold some fragments of truth and facts, but are disorganized folk knowledge at best, perhaps malicious disinformation at worst.