I think that the big problem we have right now is that the Romantics are writing the narrative and trying to hide the past. They’ve been doing this for a long time. But now the past is being scanned and made available to everyone to see for themselves and it somehow it doesn’t fit the narrative. always try to get a close to the contemporary and primary sources as you can. I’ve always wondered if child labor was so bad, how come there aren’t any books or articles by the kids when they became adults in how bad it was. After all some of them worked for newspapers. I’ve seen plenty of stuff of struggle and over coming, outright suffering, not so much.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s in his kiss. That is the easy one.
In the last two weeks I’ve got two people saying something like “but she says you shouldn’t believe established historical facts that everybody knows, and she doesn’t present any proof, and I think this means she is–” One said “an ideologue” and the other implied mad or perhaps Stalin. It was in the comments here, but I don’t feel like looking at it.
I’m not telling you everything you ever heard is a lie — for one I have no idea what you’ve heard — I’m telling you “How do you know?”
The things that offended people in both posts are things I have reason were not quite as advertised by modern Marxist historians and the romantic socialist novelists they believe piously. I wasn’t saying it was an outright lie, but I was saying “I have reason…
View original post 1,205 more words