The destruction of any statue, be it left or right, be it hateful or heroic, is catastrophic. They should be kept in a museum, and shown as part of history.

And those things help us to know how people felt during the plague, and other things, but they don’t help us to know things like what decisions were being made, who exactly was most affected, where it came from.

Agreed

Unless you know where the art originated.

But knowing the empires, influential people, and important points in history is more practical

<a:1717_Crab_Rave:726883571033440366> history forgotten is bound to be relived

If you only want to know a single piece of history sure @VulpesVulpes

Then again, I could have gotten a dual degree in history with 2 more classes but i was so done with liberal teachers by then 😂

But if you want a contextual understand of a period and people definitely look at the art and culture of the time

History should be presented objectively and from the context of that era, not ideologically.

Agreed. And if it has to be with an ideological bent, that bent should be explained

There is no such thing as objective history

Like, it was written by this dude, who won

So take it with a grain of salt

Well, history is written by winners, so yeah.

I’d argue that the belief in objective history is worse than not having history at all

It devalues the other side and forgets that what you’re being told may not be true

Yeah, I think that history should have some little bias, but not too much. And both sides should be shown.

The most important thing i was taught was to try to view history through the lense of society at the time

Many if the account of german tanks during ww2 were writen by nazis, the german tanks like panzer tend to do worse that T 34 , the germans won ironically because of their bigger number of tanks, this is an example were the losing side did write it but the point about taking history with a grain of salt remains

Yeah, we can't judge history by our modern standards. This is what liberals do wrong.

Like taking into consideration who writen it and such

They judge history by our modern day, and try to silence it, instead of judging it by that society's values and morals.

I just realized my writing is really a weird amalgamation of British English rules and American English rules

And I should work on that

Both sides contribute to the historical record, the winners don’t make it all on their own, but the side that won ultimately decides who will be portrayed as in the right

Like we view vlad the imapler as a national hero and he was a preaty good leader , and this comes from someone that would have been impaled by him for being gay , like I do get the context but I will not apologise for the wrongs he done

You’re Romanian?

Yes

Here in the USA Vlad the impaler is considered more of a historical villain

In fact he was the inspiration for Dracula

Yeah , but he is a national hero who fought against the turks

And fight against the Otoman empire is a big thing around here

I never thought of vlad as a villain. He just seemed desperate to protect his people

In a really weird way

And this is an example of different historical beliefs brought around from different perspectives

There are so many stories though, that the historical record has made a mess of.

Well his grandfather and gradgrandfather lose in directly fighting the otomans so he needed guerilla and intimidation tactics

Like the countess of bathory

Like, she may have killed a few people, maybe a few hundred, maybe she was a political assassination?

We dont know. There's no actual evidence at this point.