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?
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