Well it sure is hard to tell because, of course, I wasn't there of course, but isn't that exactly the problem here?
For my entire life I've heard the bot mot that "History is written by the victorious"...well doesn't that mean at its base level that ALL of it bathes in its own bullshit?
I like Malcom's writing and his pod...and at least he has the honesty to call it "Revisionist History" as he is obviously telling us that HERE, yes, narrative story might win out over historical accuracy (which, once again, we have been taught is BS anyway).
Why shouldn't non-textbook history reflect the shades and biases of its author? As long as its well written and presents fair reflections upon this history, why should the author be pummeled by critics for doing so?
Too many questions and not enough answers...as usual.
Well it sure is hard to tell because, of course, I wasn't there of course, but isn't that exactly the problem here?
For my entire life I've heard the bot mot that "History is written by the victorious"...well doesn't that mean at its base level that ALL of it bathes in its own bullshit?
I like Malcom's writing and his pod...and at least he has the honesty to call it "Revisionist History" as he is obviously telling us that HERE, yes, narrative story might win out over historical accuracy (which, once again, we have been taught is BS anyway).
Why shouldn't non-textbook history reflect the shades and biases of its author? As long as its well written and presents fair reflections upon this history, why should the author be pummeled by critics for doing so?
Too many questions and not enough answers...as usual.