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?
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.