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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My general rule of thumb is everything after November 1963 (JFK assassination) should be considered compromised.

Three ways:

• Primary source evidence
• Complimentary niche history
• Counter-narrative history

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.

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.