Every history book has a self-evident bias inherent in the author's choice of language. Thucydides has a clear, although still critical, bias towards Athens and democracy.
But you talked about history itself, what actually happened. That has no bias. Individual books can have worse than just biased language. As for your claim regarding all of history. It would show that 'reactionaries' were right on some things, and wrong on some others.
One cannot evaluate history honestly without shattering progressive narratives, and Western peoples are soaked in progressivism, which means history cannot be approached apolitically. To deny these political pressures is to be a fish denying water.
Every history book has a self-evident bias inherent in the author's choice of language. Thucydides has a clear, although still critical, bias towards Athens and democracy.
But you talked about history itself, what actually happened. That has no bias. Individual books can have worse than just biased language. As for your claim regarding all of history. It would show that 'reactionaries' were right on some things, and wrong on some others.
One cannot evaluate history honestly without shattering progressive narratives, and Western peoples are soaked in progressivism, which means history cannot be approached apolitically. To deny these political pressures is to be a fish denying water.
Then you're trading one set of lies for another.