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?
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.