Ron06212876, the "rewriting" you speak of has been going on for decades.
When I was in grad school (mid-1990s) many of the "rewrites" you speak of were already orthodoxy in the history profession.
When I was in grad school (mid-1990s) many of the "rewrites" you speak of were already orthodoxy in the history profession.
https://twitter.com/Ron06212876/status/1345105400786526208
It takes decades for these ideas to be communicated outside of the academy and that communication is always haphazard, because most historians are mediocre public communicators and the amateurs tend to ignore the "nuances" of what professional historians consider paradigmatic.
A good "woke", middle-of-the-road work that integrates the work of professional historians is @jmeacham's The Soul of America. He is not a Ph.D. in history but he understands one crucial point of American history: that the U.S. has never dealt fully with its racist past.
If these "rewrites" bother you its because you are unaware that they are "not" new and/or you are unwilling to simply face the facts. The U.S. was largely built on injustice to non-white people, an injustice that only began to be addressed after WWII, and is still not complete.
Any history that ignores the injustices that made the United States possible fails to enlighten us to both why history played out as it did and why we still live with many of its legacies, good and bad.
If the history you prefer always has your ancestors wearing the white hat then you don't want real history, you want "tales of derring-do" and "heritage studies"--things that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
As @WHarpine might suggest, I Corinthians 13:11.
As @WHarpine might suggest, I Corinthians 13:11.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
