>>3521>It's not like historians just make random assumptionsMany spin history to their ideology even to this day. It's a subjective interpretation, there's bound to be even accidental political spin. Especially given this attitude that there is no political spin, it's the perfect climate for spin. Political control works best when the party under control isn't even aware of it.
>And there are many ways to experimentally prove that artefact/documnet XXX is from n-th century or not.So you can carbon date it. Prove that this long lost artifact actually belonged to said person, this is not that simple. There were many people that owned a similar artifact, lets say it was a musket from the civil war. How do you know this was used by a black confederate? It was only found on the battle where there were black confederates but they weren't alone.
> the problem with that view is that there is more evidence against them than say, communists saying "I hate nazies, they bad" and writing down how bad.I'm not saying the Nazis were good guys, just that the way history is probably written in a way to exaggerates their perceived evil. Also how much Nazism is used to label anyone who isn't politically correct.
>There is a difference between scepticism and denial. Well yeah, denial isn't a position found through skepticism.
>what I meant were major historical events that are well documentedSo is scripture. And like scripture there are contradictory accounts.
> with many independent sources, not written by essentially a single source.Asch conformity.
>Sure, we can speculate whenever (for example) Elvis liked chicken or not, but events such as WWII are pretty much crystal clear.Don't mistake me as a holocaust denier buy why is it against the law in certain countries to question the official story? The offensive to Jews and Gypsies argument sounds more like an excuse. Seriously, if history is going to be like science, everything needs to be scrutinized, whats stands scrutiny is what approaches truth. Questioning evolution is not illegal and shouldn't be but the little details are constantly studied and adapted to new research (not contradicting evolution, just adding to it like the stuff with those thermodynamic models in abiogenesis and whatever).
But there is real suppression to historians (video very related) who question the accuracy of official accounts, the fact is history also plays a political role. What is deemed the official truth may not be but people will believe it because it has the official seal. And so many things that were at the time conspiracy theories came true. Look at Wikileaks. If anything there is so much evidence this society fucks with its citizenry idk why you would trust the ivory tower guys who write the policies. If we're going to talk skepticism, then history should be taken with a grain of salt.
And regarding salt I think the further back you go the more objective things may actually get because people have less emotional ties to it. So what if the ancient Egyptians did something years ago? People generally won't care. But communists, nazis, capitalists, whoever doing something a bit back? That's the shit Orwell was talking about and yeah it was hyperbolic exaggeration, it's not quite like that, but he got at the core idea. Why controlling history controls the future and how real it can be made.
>That history isn't 100% true, therefore it can be dismissed altogether?No, that history is best learned in after having a strong background in skepticism and critical thinking without someone lecturing you on how to ideologically look at something or fail or be taken to prison. History should be taught as an approach rather than regurgitation of facts and factoids.