I've mentioned before that I have a rule of thumb when watching or reading anything to not watch anything made after 2014 without a trusted recommendation. I'm wondering if anyone has a similar kind of cutoff when reading about history? If so what is yours?
With the whole diversity obsession in entertainment it has thoroughly ruined period pieces and what is even more annoying is that the media shills will find some historian to claim that Victorian England was always very racially diverse, Vikings were multicultural, or we get the moronic stuff like League of Their Own/that GREASE prequel with lgbt stuff all over along with interracial relationships.
Funny thing is that I've never heard the argument about Victorian England or the Vikings until these shows started pushing this nonsense. It's as if they have some quack historian on retainer or they say something like "well the British Empire included parts of Africa so it makes sense for them to be in a show about upper crust Brits in the 1800s".
I had to stop reading modern science magazines a while back because I foolishly thought they surely wouldn't go along with the nonsense about transgenderism. I also looked up some information on the African slave trade and the essay grudgingly admitted that slavery existed in Africa but not as bad as American slavery. In America you had slaves that were treated very poorly and very well so I would assume that would be true across the world when slavery was commonplace.
So, sorry for the essay, but any rule of thumb y'all could recommend?
I don't trust anything from history. I think all of it has been rewritten many times and biases applied. Just look at the covid-19 situation. How do you imagine textbooks will teach about it in 80 years? That it was a mostly harmless virus in which the government overreacted and deadly vaccines were developed that killed millions of people or do you think it'll report the complete opposite government approved story? In time, only a handful of people will remember the truth of covid-19. Publishers won't publish the data in books because it's misinformation. Academic journals will remove anything that references a different narrative. You'll only have some .pdfs found on obscure websites in the darkweb that tell the truth and to people in 100 years from now, it'll look like some weird esoteric mythology rather than truth.
I imagine almost all of our history is similar to this. Even stuff you'd imagine no one could lie about. Moon landing? Uh huh... Steal of the presidential election? Uh huh...
I definitely think post-WWII the level of propaganda ramped up by an exponential margin though. So my general cutoff for anything for it to be somewhat accurate is pre-WWII; however, if it's too far from the past like ancient romans/greeks/mediaeval stuff, one has to wonder if these sources have been entirely fabricated perhaps recently or perhaps centuries ago and these sources are not accurate at all for what people say they are representing.
Even the bible translation in English people have are questionable. How much of that was rewritten or works people didn't agree with were destroyed never to be found again thus skewing the entire message?
Absolutely everything I read, no matter the supposed time it was written, is under scrutiny by me. If what I'm reading doesn't help to improve what I know to be best in life, then as far as I'm concerned, it is drivel.
Mostly agreed.
People are people. Is there any reason to think the censorious, dissent-suppressing leftists of today are inherently different from those who were authoritarian collaborators 100 years ago? Maybe, but generally evolution doesn't work that fast. I tend to think the tools have changed but the people haven't, meaning that all recorded political and social history has been decided by the powerful.
Great points all around
Between Covid and seeing history rewritten in real time during #GamerGate...yeah, I think it's safe to say that a tremendous amount of history is suspect now.
Lol
If a book said kill yourself because that would be better for you and the world, would you kill yourself?
Even if you laugh at my sentence, you do the exact same thing.
Nope!
Also nope!
Once again, your metaphors are bad.
No, my metaphors are amazing. You're just too stupid to understand.
He's not stupid, he's malicious, as is tradition.
Remember when you said that me telling you to raise your standards was on par with telling you to eat rotten apples?
I thought that was pretty funny.
But you saying that metaphors like this is "amazing" is incredibly hilarious.
Biggest lol yet hahaha
Good point. One study I'd like to do is to compare western colonization as it was versus how they talk about it today. I feel it would be night and day.
You'd see a lot more about the natives' traditions of human sacrifice, murdering and raping rival tribes that they would constantly declare war against to secure the few resources worth salvaging because they sucked at agriculture, condemning all the survivors to slavery, and dying at a very young age to minor diseases, at least. It might give you a more favourable impression of all the progress that was brought to the backward, primitive cultures that existed in the West before the Europeans arrived.
You might find these books interesting:
https://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126
https://www.amazon.com/Sick-Societies-Challenging-Primitive-Harmony/dp/0029089255
That first one has been in my 'too buy and read' list for far too long.
Hopefully I won't go drunk-browsing this weekend and end up ordering any books.
Again.
I don't do drunk browsing - but I do somehow end up with a lot of books sitting in my to read pile. At the moment I'm reading about Khemitology , The Land of Osiris - which is the Oral Egyptian Tradition that is nothing like what Egyptologists would have you believe. For Starters The Giza Pyramid was never a Kings Tomb.
I was born in Oklahoma and they were surprisingly candid about Native American history. Well compared to how I imagine it is taught now. There would also be tribal representatives that would come talk to us. What you said though makes me wish for some reality show where all the “America is evil” college students have to last a month living with a Gods Must Be Crazy style African tribe or live like Native Americans circa 1300
I just learned some local colonial history from my area. It was a story about how a shipwreck of British Colonists was rescued by a local Aboriginal Tribe. The tribe then helped them walk a few 100 km's to civilization - but just before they got back, the aborigines killed every single colonist including children. When the local elder was asked about the Oral Tradition he said the tribe killed them because they didn't offer any thing as thanks for the rescue trip. Remembering they had nothing because of the shipwreck.
I’m surprised that story hasn’t been changed.
I had a good conversation with the local tribe Elder a few years ago - and he was actually disgusted with the rest of his fellow aboriginals - he was actually a cool guy. There are a few good ones out there.
That’s good to hear. I actually have a book about their dream concepts
In Australia we now have to pretend the Abos are pure innocents savages that we corrupted. Ignoring of course their 50% post-natal Abortion rate (that's right they waited until the baby was born before killing and EATING IT). The abo tribes were constantly at war with each other and couldn't even invent the wheel. Then we had some lefty write a bullshit book that was later debunked saying that Abos had an advanced society before we got here and ruined. Pure fairy tale garbage.
My very first friend ever as a kid was an abo boy. But he was adopted into a white family - so he was ok mostly. A bit rough around the edges
Lost contact with him after a few years since that time but I do remember his parents split and he moved with his mum to Alice Springs and spent most of the time there with her
I do hope he hasn't been corrupted by the abos there but most likely he has. Was my very first friend after all
I took a young aboriginal boy under my wing for a year as a mentor - but the situation became untenable because of his family.
Not surprised. You’d think they could at least stop acting like native groups were as pure as the driven snow
Everyone's appalled when a historical source calls a native a "savage" until the source material mentions one of them eating a baby.
Mayans: Not Even Once.
A project I would like to undertake one of these days is to read American history backwards.
It's all English, so I don't have to learn another language. And by going backwards it's possible to ease into the earlier dialects of American English since my starting point would be the dialect I'm fluent in.
It's gotten so bad that at this point I have my doubts that Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. I would assume that any history book written in at least the last 50 years is suspect.
There have been doubts about Eli Whitney?
I have no reason to doubt it other than the fact that they seem to be obsessed with lying about how black people invented everything else these days, and it makes me wonder how long that sort of lying has been happening.
Yea. As far as I’ve read his accomplishments were legit. Or at least I’ve read about his stuff from decades past. I definitely know what you are taking about although it’s reached peak absurdity since the Floyd riots. I’ve read Booker T Washington’s books as well as Dubois. Since Washington is despised by black leftists I guess I’d be more trusting about his info whereas Dubois is a darling of the left (there is even footage of him drinking with Mao).
Eli Whitney was about as black as Beethoven. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/eli-whitney-inventor-of-the-cotton-gin-wasn-t-black-but-here-s-why-so-many-people-think-he-was.html
Is it so bad that we doubt George Washington Carver invented peanut butter?
The aztecs beat him by a few hundred years.
I’ve seen footage from the 30s on him. I’d be suspicious if it was made today considering the times we live in
I never heard he invented peanut butter.
From what I remember reading, he invented a buttload of products from peanuts to help encourage crop rotation for optimal soil quality. I think people look at that and assume Peanut Butter was one of them.
Peanut Butter was already invented - he just patented it (sure he wasn't a jew ? lol)
That’s what I thought
I dunno, but I recall a retaliatory meme about "ending cultural appropriation," where the black character was left naked in a straw hut with a jar of peanut butter.
Depends as there was a difference between reading and watching like documentaries and the like.
Reading has LONG been infiltrated within academia but for the longest time they were regarded as idiots so got sidelined compared to actual historians. Only within a few decades along with the left's accession that these formally ridiculed nobodies got held up as learned individuals to justify the left's idocracy.
The documentary scene was good for a long time until diversity was pushed hard definitely after 2014. Before one of the good places to go for historical documentaries was actually Britain as they made stuff for kids to enjoy notably Horrible Histories (which ironically ended in 2014) and in depth shows like 20th century Battlefields.
After 2014 you needed to be EXTREMELY careful, pretty much all old media historical show was infected by diversity and only individual channels on YouTube could be better relied on.
Thanks! I found Metatron on YouTube and he is good. This may be a project that’ll have to wait until retirement but I did my ancestry DNA and wanted to do a deep dive of all the regions I have something from. I’ve always been fascinated with England and it’s one of the regions to research so win win. lol.
You might be interested in this guy. Tons of videos on the history of the peoples of England from a decidedly non-woke historian.
https://www.youtube.com/@Survivethejive/playlists
Thanks again!
Learning more about history, I'd say I'm a little suspect of some of the Civil War documentary I loved. There's some things he never brings up, which need to be talked about.
That's one of the ugly problems with some documentarians. They present a single meta-narrative. They don't argue any of the other counter-narratives, or even address them.
You'd think he'd mention Lincoln arresting the Maryland legislature, or why secessionist debates in Delaware nearly succeeded by all but one vote. Mentions Andersonville, but not some of the northern prisons. Talks about Pro-Slavery & Anti-Slavery men in Kansas, but doesn't go into enough detail about who actually is on either side, and who's funding it. He missed shit that doesn't confirm the Boomer Truth regime, and it's a problem.
No. I actually can't. He did humanize the South, comparatively. I do not believe he would consider it for a moment today. I'm surprised he didn't celebrate the burning of Lee's statue, frankly.
Since I have degrees in history and anthropology most historical movies will be bad to me. The really early doctor who runs off of pop culture history a lot and drives me nuts. Then I fall in love with the talons of weng Shiang. Doctor three admits to being best friends with mao zhe dong. It's hilarious.
Then I watch Robin Hood or Gladiator and spend half the movie pointing out mistakes and pissing off my wife.
Basically, recognize that anything being shown has an angle and accept that the angle exists or tear apart the inner argument of the movie and have a good laugh. Documentaries can be so full of crap that I forget I'm cooking.
Fun stuff.
Generally you wait 20 years before looking at historical knowledge and documents because the pop culture opinion of the time will cover up the truth.
Thanks! Though not quite the same but but since myself and most of my family have been in the military we will nitpick military shows or movies. Wasn’t early Dr Who supposed to be somewhat of a history lesson? Granted I enjoyed Dr Who up until halfway through Capaldi. Gave Jodie a chance and was done after 3 episodes
You would enjoy Dr 2 and 3. They have a more traditional military response. All the actors show folks served. Heck, 3 had tattoos from the navy. I can't say they do it perfectly, but it's definitely more real than later seasons. The science and history are terrible at times.
Yup but fun. 4th doctor will always be my favorite but I love the 3rd doctor. 2nd is good. I just need to see more episodes
Baker is the reason why you should watch old who. Even as a kid I loved him.
Yup. My parents watched his episodes when I was a baby. The reason my first memories are the Dr Who theme
Did you watch that Ridley Scott film about the knights who had a Duel because the wife was raped?
Ridley Scott and Historical Film is basically an oxymoron.
I take it you won't be watching Napoleon.
Pretty much. My favorite map graphic is the march to Russia.
http://nowscape.com/images/map_napoleon_moscow.gif
It wasn't that bad actually - the Waterloo battle was well done. But it was actually mainly about his relationship with Josephine.
I see that map and I almost think to myself that the invasion of Russia was nearly worse than the retreat from it. And the retreat was, you know, kinda bad.
Yeah, Russians use cold and mud as a weapon from invasion.
I fucking love
ScienceHistory!That's what makes you crazy.
I make large link lists for further evidence later on for a reason. It's maddening that I have to do that.
NCIS made fun of that so many times. At one point two characters typed on the keyboard at the same time while dramatic music played.
Don't watch the movie Source Code.
For what it's worth, I haven't read anything in the past 2+ years published prior to this book from 1965:
https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-American-People/dp/0195000307
Highly recommend it if you're looking for a broad history of North America up to the early 1960s. Read it simultaneously with a more recent American history book for an "enlightening" experience.
Many people are commenting on the need to find older sources, as they can be more reliable and honest. But you have to be careful with that too. People like Franz Boas wrote nearly a hundred years ago and he polluted anthropology with his nonsense way back then. The field hasn't recovered and now he is considered a "father" of anthropology.
Thanks!
I don't think there's a cut-off date per se. Rather I just look at who the producers/writers/directors are. So I'll happily watch Dunkirk for example. But I've never seen and never will Schindlers List.
Three broad rules of thumb I use for history stuff.
One, follow the good creators. James Burke, Adam Curtis, find people who are willing to tell the truth, to the best of their abilities.
Two, older is better, usually. As long as you keep in mind the limitations of the research of the time.
Three, real things get suppressed. You might have to dig to find them. There's a couple of subjects I keep up with that I have to go to websites/conventions that also do weird things, like aliens and cryptozoology.
Thanks! Aliens and cryptozoology as well as anything paranormal has been an interest of mine since third grade. I’ve only been to one alien convention but want to go to more. I’d love to go to the MUFON symposium one day.
Next time you go, look for the Tesla guys and the people with material about ancient lost civilizations.
Like Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson? All fascinating stuff. I listen to a lot of podcasts on those topics as well.
My general rule of thumb is everything after November 1963 (JFK assassination) should be considered compromised.
Three ways:
Fundamentally, a lot of the people who lived the events (at least in the west) wrote their experiences. Even if they are biased, their bias should be clear, and they should have a clear accounting of what they think is the truth. Particularly if they are not political leaders, but just 'witness to history' types. These are shockingly common. If you want to know about slavery, the library of congress has literally thousands of statements of former slaves. Voices of The Past is a good channel too.
Please note, these can be wrong, anecdotal, or misinterpreted as all eyewitness testimony is. And make sure it's not primary source evidence long after the event, or at the request of someone else. Diaries and letters are the most useful. But, if you are intelligent, you should be able to separate out what might be a one-off thing rather than a trend. Especially if you see it over and over again.
Alternatively, find people who are hyper-focused on something else. That is the 'niche' history. Don't ask if a famine happened. Ask someone who focuses only on cooking history about the time period. If they start mentioning things like "started cooking dogs" or "eating bugs" or something like that, there's your confirmation there's a famine. Some people are too busy focusing on a niche topic, to uphold a general narrative. Look at history from different perspectives to compliment what seems to be true. Look at economic history, fashion history, technological history, travel history, cultural history, climatological history, religious history... if they all keep hitting on the same point from different perspectives, the point is probably true.
Counter-narrative history is where you find the counter-narratives. I wouldn't suggest finding the modern counter-narratives. Those are typically misinformed. Look for the counter-narratives of the original time. Very often, your primary source evidence will allude to them. Don't look at the American Revolution from just what you see, look to see what the British claimed. Especially investigate claims that maybe British regulars claimed about the Americans. See what their narrative of events is, and compare and contrast. Normally, the counter-narratives will identify shit that the primary narrative ignores, or re-interprets common events. This doesn't make it true, but if both narratives are forced to agree upon certain things, then you'll have something to work off. A good assumption is that both narratives of an event are "wrong" because they offer limited perspective.
So for example: "The Boston Massacre" from the American narrative is that British troops fired aimlessly into a crowd. From the British narrative, a mob descended on them. When you start looking at all the actual claims, you'll find that an angry mob descended on the British because of the conduct of the government, as well as finicky troops not knowing how to handle howling mob.
Thanks. Boston Massacre is very interesting. I actually really enjoyed learning about that period in history class. I’ve heard some interviews from former slaves from early 1900s. Very good and I do need to get that book. I find it odd how for some reason an 18 year old woke black teen lecturing people about slavery has more weight than the words of actual former slaves
The 1951 detective novel, The Daughter of Time, deals with the casual investigative efforts of a bed-ridden police inspector doing research on the 500-year old crimes of King Richard III (yes, the one with the hump) and it ends with some surprising revelations about the man's life and reign. The book was pretty much dismissed by "expert voices in the field," but, if even a fraction of the "proof" presented in the book is true, then most of the "historic facts" on the man should be held suspect.
Also, the book is routinely selected as number one in top crime novel listings, so have another one for your backlog.
Thanks!!!! I have so many in my backlog